9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenge to Ext.P6 order. However, it is found that, at this distance of time, when the appellant has already utilised an amount of Rs.37,24,463/- for paying the output tax due under the CGST/SGST Act, and technically it would be entitled to claim a refund of an amount of Rs.59,05,352/-, which represented un-adjusted TDS or output tax paid in excess by it, the ends of justice could be served by modifying Annexure A1 order and Ext.P6 order so as to take into account the subsequent events that have come about since the filing of the writ petition. It would be a meaningless exercise to require the appellant to reverse the amount of Rs.37,24,463/- utilised as input tax credit and pay the said amount to the respondents, when the respondents ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant is a registered Private Limited Company registered as such under the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. It is a provider of works contract services. During the period from July, 2017 to March, 2018, the appellant had un-adjusted TDS amounts in its account. In other words, during the said period, the appellant had, while paying output tax in respect of the services provided by it, failed to adjust the TDS amounts that were lying to its credit in its accounts. Instead of claiming a refund of the output tax paid, to the extent of un-adjusted TDS that was available in the accounts, it chose to treat the un-adjusted TDS as available input tax credit in its accounts and sought to transition the same to its GST account as unutilised in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutory provisions under the CGST/SGST Act to hold that un-adjusted TDS amounts could not be treated as input tax credits for the purposes of the CGST/SGST Act. The writ petition was therefore dismissed, but liberty was granted to the appellant to apply for a refund of the TDS in accordance with law. 5. We have heard Sri.Jayanandakumar V., the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.P.R.Sreejith, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1, 4, 5 and 7 and also Sri.V.K. Shamsudheen, the learned senior Government Pleader for respondents 2, 3 and 6. 6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that, on the point of law, the learned Single Judge is correct in his finding that un-adjusted TDS, which is essentially a compon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the penalties of Rs.3,72,446/- and Rs.25,000/- imposed in Annexure A1 order can be sustained, taking note of the irregularity occasioned by the appellant. We thus modify Annexure A1 order and direct that only the penalties imposed on the appellant under the said order shall be recoverable by the respondents. The demand of tax and interest thereunder is set aside. 7. Further, the disallowance of the transition of TDS, to the extent of Rs.21,80,889/- alone [Rs.59,05,352 Rs.37,24,463] in Ext.P6 order, is upheld and Ext.P6 order modified to that extent. It will be open to the appellant to seek a refund of the said amount of Rs.21,80,889/- by way of refund from the State Government towards un-adjusted TDS. Thus, solely with a view to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
