Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube
gst-panacea-logo
Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube

GOPARAJ GOPALAKRIS HNAN PILLAI V. STO

Case Title

Goparaj gopalakrishnan pillai vs the state tax officer-1

Court

Kerala High Court

Honorable Judges

Justice Dinesh Kumar singh 

Citation

2023 (10) GSTPanacea 198 HC Kerala

WP(C) NO. 29855 OF 2023

Judgment Date

05-October-2023

The petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the legality of the Show Cause Notice (Ext.P1) and the subsequent assessment order (Ext.P1(A)) issued by the authorities. These documents disallowed the petitioner’s claim for input tax credit amounting to Rs.19,830. Additionally, they imposed interest and penalty charges totaling Rs.52,572, with Rs.12,742 for interest and Rs.20,000 for penalties.

The petitioner, identified as a registered dealer under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act of 2017 with GSTIN No. 32ANPPP5159DIZV, had allegedly claimed excess input tax credit of Rs.33,05,038 in their GST return for the fiscal year 2017-2018. This excess credit was purportedly based on the figures from Form GSTR-2A, which indicated an input tax credit of Rs.65,39,776, contrasting with the amount availed and utilized by the petitioner.

The petitioner’s GSTR-3B for a certain period totaled Rs.98,44,815/-. A comparison between the GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B forms revealed an apparent excess input tax credit claimed by the petitioner amounting to Rs.33,05,038/-. Following this observation, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26th August 2022, prompting a response filed by the petitioner on 3rd October 2020. In their reply, the petitioner explained that they had mistakenly recorded SGST of Rs.36,47,624.24 instead of Rs.3,64,764.24 in the GSTR-3B for December 2017, resulting in a discrepancy of Rs.32,82,860/-. Additionally, the petitioner clarified that they had not utilized the excess input tax credit until the mentioned date. Furthermore, it was noted that a deduction of Rs.22,922.22 was made for excess input tax credit in the GSTR-3B for August 2018 (Financial Year 2018-2019).

The Assessing Officer in a recent case determined that a taxpayer could only claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) if the tax charged on a particular supply had been remitted to the government by the supplier. In this specific instance, the supplier or dealer hadn’t remitted the tax collected on the supply nor provided details of the supply in their return. Consequently, the taxpayer was deemed ineligible to avail ITC on these supplies due to the non-remittance of tax by the supplier. An intimation of liability, as per Section 73(5) of the Act, was issued to the taxpayer in Part-A of Form GST DRC-01A. This decision underscores the importance of compliance not only by taxpayers but also by suppliers in ensuring the availability of ITC and proper tax remittance, as mandated by GST regulations.

Download Pdf:
Goparaj gopalakrishnan pillai

For Reference Visit:
Kerala High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law

 
 
 
 

Company Policy

GET STARTED​

IMPORTANT LINKS

Weekly Newsletter