ITC be disallowed
|
Case Title |
MRF Limited vs State of Bihar Commissioner and Others. |
|
Court |
Patna High Court |
|
Honorable Judges |
Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice S. Kumar |
|
Citation |
2022 (3) GSTPanacea 304 HC Patna CWJC 3929 of 2022 |
|
Judgement Date |
11-March-2022 |
|
Council for Petitioner |
D.V.Pathy |
|
Council for Respondent |
Vivek Prasad |
|
Section |
Section 16(4) of the BGST Act and Rule 36 (4) of the BGST Rules |
|
In Favour of |
Shall pass a fresh order |
ITC be disallowed
The Patna High Court bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice S. Kumar has held that quash the impugned order dated 24th of February, 2021, as also the consequential demand notice. Court also quash the order of attachment dated 26th of February, 2022 of the bank account. The Assessing Officer shall pass a fresh order accounting for the entire facts on record by the assessee, including the returns filed by him.
ITC be disallowed
FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s) The show cause notice dated 15.02.2021 proposing to disallow input tax credit on the ground of wrong utilization of input tax credit under Section 16(4) of the BGST Act and Rule 36 (4) of the BGST Rules for the Period April 2019 to September 2019 even prior to the coming into force of the said Rules be quashed The order dated 24.02.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 disallowing the claim of input tax credit for the Period April 2019 to March 2020 only on the ground of non-filing of the annual return despite filing the same online on 23.02.2021 containing necessary data in relation to claim of input tax credit be quashed and on a seven-day notice without affording an adequate opportunity of being heard be quashed The respondent no. 2 be directed to rectify the order dated 24.02.2021 (as contained in Annexure -3 series) under Section 161 of the BGST Act to correct the prima facie mistakes apparent on the face record The notice of demand dated 24.02.2021 issued by the respondent no. 2 in Form GST DRC – 07 be quashed The notice of demand dated 26.02.202 issued by the respondent no. 2 attaching the bank account of the petitioner maintained with HDFC bank Ltd, Patna for recovery of the whole of the amount of tax in dispute be quashed
ITC be disallowed
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that court are inclined to adopt the latter course and, as such, quash the impugned order dated 24th of February, 2021, as also the consequential demand notice. Court also quash the order of attachment dated 26th of February, 2022 of the bank account. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with the Assessing Officer within a period of next two working days. The Assessing Officer shall pass a fresh order accounting for the entire facts on record by the assessee, including the returns filed by him.
ITC be disallowed
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
Court notice that, perhaps, this fact was not taken into notice or escaped the attention of the officer passing the impugned order. As such, they are left with two options, i.e. either to ask the respondent to file response or quash the order asking the officer to pass a fresh order. Petition is disposed of on the following mutually agreeable terms: (1) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with the Assessing Officer within a period of next two working days. The Assessing Officer shall pass a fresh order accounting for the entire facts on record by the assessee, including the returns filed by him. If, after adjudication, any amount is found to be in excess, the same shall be adjusted towards dues payable by the petitioner for the subsequent period. Such order shall be passed within four weeks from today.
Download Pdf:
For Reference Visit: