9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoice, they had received the goods and services or both and the payment has been made to the supplier of the goods or services or both. The reason for denying the input tax credit is on the ground that the detail of the supplier is not reflecting in GSTR 1 of the supplier. The appellant had pointed out that they are in possession of a valid tax invoice and payment details to the supplier have been substantiated by producing the tax invoice and the bank statement. The first respondent without resorting to any action against the fourth respondent who is the selling dealer has ignored the tax invoices produced by the appellant as well as the bank statement to substantiate that they have paid the price for the goods and services rendered as well as the tax payable there on, the action of the first respondent has to be branded as arbitrarily. Therefore, before directing the appellant to reverse the input tax credit and remit the same to the government, the first respondent ought to have taken action against the fourth respondent the selling dealer and unless and until the first respondent is able to bring out the exceptional case where there has been collusion between the appellant an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the excess ITC claimed by the appellant for the Financial Year 2017-18 on the basis of the difference of the amount of ITC in Form GSTR-2A and Form GSTR-3B with respect to the purchase transaction made by the appellant with the fourth respondent. The appellant filed detailed replies on 06.01.2023 and 11.01.2023, denying the allegations made in the show-cause notice and among other things submitted that the appellant had made payment of tax to the fourth respondent arising from the transaction and thereafter availed ITC on the said purchase. The show-cause notice was adjudicated and by order dated 20.02.2023 a demand for payment of tax of Rs. 6,50,511/- along with applicable interest and penalty was confirmed under Section 73(10) of the Act. Challenging the said order, the appellant had filed the writ petition. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellant to prefer a statutory appeal before the appellate authority after complying with the requisite formalities and the appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal without rejecting the same on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant has p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order of recovery of tax is wholly unsustainable. 5. In the press release dated 18.10.2018 a clarification was issued stating that furnishing of outward details in Form GSTR-1 by the corresponding supplier(s) and the facility to view the same in Form GSTR-2A by the recipient is in the nature of taxpayer facilitation and does not impact the ability of the taxpayer to avail ITC on self-assessment basis in consonance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. Further, it has been clarified that the apprehension that ITC can be availed only on the basis of reconciliation between Form GSTR-2B and Form GSTR-3B conducted before the due date for filing of the return in Form GSTR-3B for the month of September, 2018 is unfounded and the same exercise can be done thereafter also. In the press release dated 4th May, 2018, it was clarified that there shall not be any automatic reversal of input tax credit from buyer on non-payment of tax by the seller. In case of default in payment of tax by the seller, recovery shall be made from the seller however, reversal of credit from buyer shall also be an option available with the revenue authorities to address exceptional situations like missing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution. It was further held that the result of such reading down would be that the department is precluded from invoking Section 9(2)(g) of DVAT Act to deny the ITC to the purchasing dealer who had bona fide entered into a purchase transaction with the registered selling dealer who had issued a tax invoice reflecting the TIN number and in the event that the selling dealer has failed to deposit the tax collected by him from the purchasing dealer, the remedy for the department would be to proceed against a defaulting selling dealer to recover such tax and not denying the purchasing dealer the ITC. It was further held that where however, the department is able to come across material to show that the purchasing dealer and the selling dealer acted in collusion then the department can proceed under Section 40A of the DVAT Act. With the above conclusion, the default assessment orders of tax interest and penalty were set aside. The decision in Arise India Limited was challenged before the Hon ble Supreme Court by the Government in Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, Delhi Versus Arise India Limited and the special leave petition was dismissed by judgment dated 10.01.2018, reported in MANU/SCO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an option available with the revenue authorities to address the exceptional situations like missing dealer, closure of business by supplier or supplier not having adequate assets etc. 9. The first respondent without resorting to any action against the fourth respondent who is the selling dealer has ignored the tax invoices produced by the appellant as well as the bank statement to substantiate that they have paid the price for the goods and services rendered as well as the tax payable there on, the action of the first respondent has to be branded as arbitrarily. Therefore, before directing the appellant to reverse the input tax credit and remit the same to the government, the first respondent ought to have taken action against the fourth respondent the selling dealer and unless and until the first respondent is able to bring out the exceptional case where there has been collusion between the appellant and the fourth respondent or where the fourth respondent is missing or the fourth respondent has closed down its business or the fourth respondent does not have any assets and such other contingencies, straight away the first respondent was not justified in directing the appellant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
