9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en considered in the DIYA AGENCIES VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, UNION OF INDIA, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES CUSTOMS, THE STATE OF KERALA [ 2023 (9) TMI 955 - KERALA HIGH COURT] where it was held that If the seller dealer (supplier) has not remitted the said amount paid by the petitioner to him, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Whether the petitioner has paid the tax amount and the transactions between the petitioner and seller dealer are genuine are the matter on facts and evidence. The petitioner has to discharge the burden of proof regarding the remittance of tax to the seller dealer by giving evidence. Impugned order for denial of input tax credit to the petitioner to the extent of 19,830/- is he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05,038/-. Since the ITC as per Form GSTR-2A was Rs. 65,39,776/-, whereas the ITC availed and utilised as per Form GSTR-3B was Rs. 98,44,815/-, while comparing the form GSTR-2A and 3B, it appears that the petitioner had availed excess input tax credit to an extent of Rs. 33,05,038/-. The petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 26.08.2022 to which he filed reply on 3rd October 2020. In response to the notice issued, the petitioner stated that he mistakenly entered SGST of Rs. 36,47,624.24 instead of Rs. 3,64,764.24 in GSTR-3B of December 2017 (difference amount of Rs. 32,82,860/-). The petitioner also submitted that he had not utilised ITC till the said date. Excess input tax credit of Rs. 22,922.22 was deducted in the GSTR-3B of August ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said judgment reads as under: 8. In view thereof, I find that the impugned Exhibit P-1 assessment order so far denial of the input tax credit to the petitioner is not sustainable, and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to give opportunity to the petitioner for his claim for input tax credit. If on examination of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, the assessing officer is satisfied that the claim is bonafide and genuine, the petitioner should be given input tax credit. Merely on the ground that in Form GSTR-2A the said tax is not reflected should not be a sufficient ground to deny the assessee the claim of the input tax credit. The assessing authority is therefore, directed to give an opportunity to the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
