GST Input Tax Credit Challenge Succeeds as Procedural Fairness Trumps Technical Compliance Under Section 16(2)(c)

HC ruled on GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) dispute involving Section 16(2)(c). Court found procedural irregularities in the tax authority's order, specifically that the petitioner was not granted a hearing before an adverse order. The judgment set aside the original order and directed the authority to hear the petitioner's application within four weeks, emphasizing due process and statutory compliance in tax proceedings.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the invocation of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the eligibility and conditions for taking Input Tax Credit (ITC).

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1 - Invocation of Section 16(2)(c) of the Act:
The petitioner, an assessee under the Act, received a pre-assessment notice regarding the invocation of Section 16(2)(c). The respondent's case was based on supplies made to the petitioner by delinquent suppliers whose registrations were cancelled, resulting in non-remittance of tax to the Department.

Issue 2 - Compliance with Section 16 for ITC eligibility:
Section 16 mandates that tax charged for a supply must be actually paid to the Government for continuity of ITC. The petitioner was required to ensure compliance with this provision to be entitled to ITC.

Issue 3 - Reversal of ITC due to non-remittance of tax by suppliers:
Three suppliers failed to remit tax despite uploading invoices, leading to the petitioner's reversal of ITC. The petitioner contended that they fulfilled all statutory conditions for ITC eligibility, but the respondent rejected their claim, resulting in a demand confirmed by an order-in-original.

Issue 4 - Application for rectification under Section 161:
The petitioner sought rectification of errors in the order-in-original, citing relevant decisions not considered by the respondent. The Court acknowledged the strict observance of Section 16 provisions to safeguard revenue interests, emphasizing the supplier's primary liability over the purchaser's protective liability.

Issue 5 - Procedural irregularity and remedy:
The Court found a fatal flaw in the procedure followed by the assessing authority, as the petitioner was not granted an opportunity before the adverse order was passed. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be heard within four weeks on the Section 161 application.

The judgment allowed the Writ Petition, highlighting the importance of due process and adherence to statutory provisions in matters concerning tax liability and ITC eligibility under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

---