Can respondents keep the application for rectification pending and instead blocked the ITC lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner for more than one year?

instead blocked the ITC lying

Case Title

Prabha Energy Private Limited vs The State of Jharkhand & Others.

Court

Jharkhand High Court

Honorable Judges

Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh & Justice Deepak Roshan

Citation

2022 (3) GSTPanacea 299 HC Jharkhand

W.P.(T) No. 3247 of 2020

Judgement Date

08-March-2022

Council for Petitioner

N.K.Pasari

Sidhi Jalan

Council for Respondent

Darshana Poddar Mishra

Section

Section 73 & Section 161 of the Act of 2017.

In Favour of

Favour of Assessee


The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh & Justice Deepak Roshan has held that the respondents should take a decision on the application for rectification dated 28th September, 2019 pending before them in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The respondents would also take a decision on the issue of unblocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner preferably within a period of six weeks from today as it appears that the same has remained blocked for more than 2 years since 16.02.2020.

 

instead blocked the ITC lying

FACTS OF THE CASE

Writ petition show petitioner-company duly registered under the GST Act, 2017 was subjected to inspection on 1st December 2018 by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and asked to furnish a set of documents before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax on 4 th December, 2018 under Section 71 of the JGST Act, 2017. According to the petitioner relevant documents such as purchase register with copy of invoices and vender wise detail of GST credit for the period 1 st July, 2017 to 31st October, 2018 and stock register for financial year 2017-18, 2018-19 were furnished. However, according to the petitioner as per the agreement with the ONGC and IOCL the project executed by the petitioner was at this stage of installation/erection/commission and as on that date 19th July, 2019 no revenue had been generated. However, petitioner received a summary of show cause notice under GST DRC-01/GST DRC-02 alleging availment of excess Input Tax Credit for the period July, 2017 to September, 2018 proposing to impose tax, interest and penalty to the tune of Rs. 1.09 crores. Petitioner’s return were also subjected to scrutiny and GST ASMT-10 was issued in terms of Rule 99 (1) for the period of April, 2018 to March, 2019 which overlaps to the period of DRC-01/ DRC-02 alleging mismatch of GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. Subsequently petitioner was surprised to receive a summary of the order under GST DRC-07 issued under Rule 142(5) for the period July, 2017 to September 2018. According to the petitioner it filed an application for rectification on 28th September, 2019 under Section 161 of the Act of 2017 and also submitted reconciliation statements for the period of 1st July 2017 to 30th September 2018 in terms of which an amount of Rs. 4.06 lacs was standing towards ITC in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner as per the reconciliation statements there is no difference or mismatch or excess availment of ITC. The grievance of the petitioner is that no order has been passed on the rectification application till date while an amount of Rs. 74.20 lacs of ITC remains blocked in its Electronic Credit Ledger since 16th February 2020 till date much beyond the one year period prescribed under rule 86 A of the JGST Act, 2017. Petitioner has inter-alia taken up number of grounds and urged that the writ petition is maintainable on account of violation of principles of natural justice and failure to follow the procedure prescribed in law before passing an adverse order imposing tax, interest and penalty upon the petitioner under Section 73 of the JGST Act. Petitioner has also taken a plea that in case the respondents have under taken scrutiny of the return submitted by the petitioner under Section 61 of the JGST Act and issued ASMT-10 showing mismatch or discrepancy in his returns, petitioner was entitled to avail of the statutory period to remove such discrepancy or seek a rectification thereof under Section 161 of the JGST Act. The respondents have kept the application for rectification pending and instead blocked the ITC lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner for more than one year. Therefore, summary of the order contained in GST DRC07 (Annexure-12) be quashed and the respondents may be directed to unblock ITC lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner. At the same time the respondents may also be directed to undertake the rectification of the discrepancy as per the reconciliation statements provided by the petitioner. In case the rectification exercise leads to adverse order against the petitioner, he may be allowed the liberty to assail it before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the JGST.

instead blocked the ITC lying

COURT HELD

Considering the facts as recorded, held that the respondents should take a decision on the application for rectification dated 28th September, 2019 pending before them in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. However, this Court is not convinced that the challenge to the order passed under Section 73 under GST can be entertained in writ jurisdiction since the time limit prescribed for an aggrieved assessee to prefer statutory remedy has expired before filing of the writ petition. If aggrieved by the order passed in rectification application, may have the liberty to avail the statutory remedy under the JGST Act, 2017. The respondents would also take a decision on the issue of unblocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner preferably within a period of six weeks from today as it appears that the same has remained blocked for more than 2 years since 16.02.2020.

instead blocked the ITC lying

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

In such circumstances, court are of the considered view that the respondents should take a decision on the application for rectification dated 28th September, 2019 pending before them in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and also taking note of the orders passed by the Apex Court in this regard in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 3/2020. The writ petition was filed on 15.10.2020 much after the period of expiry of the limitation period of three months and the period of limitation of three months for filing appeal had expired before the lockdown started Needless to say, petitioner if aggrieved by the order passed in rectification application, may have the liberty to avail the statutory remedy under the JGST Act, 2017. The respondents would also take a decision on the issue of unblocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner preferably within a period of six weeks from today as it appears that the same has remained blocked for more than 2 years since 16.02.2020.

DownloadPdf:

Prabha Energy Private Limited

For Reference Visit:

Jharkhand High Court