ITC claimed by petitioner GSTR-2B
Case Title | M/s Progressive Stone Works vs The Joint Commissioner(ST) Vellore & Others. |
Court | Madras High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice C.Saravanan |
Citation | 2022 (6) GSTPanacea 238 HC Madras W.P.No 17109 & 17111 of 2021 and W.P.No 18314 & 18137 of 2021 |
Judgement Date | 16-June-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | J.Arasi Ponmalar |
Council for Respondent | Richardsons Wilson |
Section | Section 107 of the CGST Act 2017 |
In Favour of | Writ petition cannot be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation |
The Madras High Court bench of Justice C.Saravanan has held that the petitioner was expected to compare to input tax credit availed with the information contained in Form GSTR-2A, Form GSTR-4A or Form GSTR-6A as the case may be. The petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner has challenged the respective Assessment Orders in these writ petitions for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. There is difference in the ITC claimed by the petitioner in its GSTR-2B and the information captured in the GSTR-2A as compared to the GSTR 1 of the supplier for the respective Assessment years.
The demand has been workout as Rs.8,21,123/- and Rs.3,53,519/- for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and Assessment Year 2018-19 respectively
petitioner claimed that credit availed on the strength of invoices issued by the supplier under the provisions of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 cannot be denied as input tax credit was availed on the strength of the invoices on which tax charged by the supplier of the petitioner
It is submitted that the mistake committed by the supplier in not properly uploading the information in their GSTR-1 would not come in the legitimate by way of availing input tax credit to the petitioner
It is submitted that the mistake committed by the supplier in not properly uploading the information in their GSTR-1 would not come in the legitimate by way of availing input tax credit to the petitioner
It is further submitted that by clarification in Circular No.125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019, refunds are being given in the case of reports claim refund under Rule 89 of the respective CGST Rules under similar circumstances whereas in the case of domestic supplier, no such discussion has been given and therefore the result is in unfair discrimination
Attention was also drawn to Rules 58 & 59 of CGST respective Rules under the respective enactments which read pari-material
ITC claimed by petitioner GSTR-2B
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that the petitioner was expected to compare to input tax credit availed with the information contained in Form GSTR-2A, Form GSTR-4A or Form GSTR-6A as the case may be.
Where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question.
The petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2007. Therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation
ITC claimed by petitioner GSTR-2B
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
These writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution are liable to be dismissed. I am therefore inclined to dismiss the present writ petitions. I however give liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed within such time, the appeal shall be numbered and taken up for hearing on its turn.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit: