Input tax credit claims when invoices don't appear in GSTR-2A: genuine purchases and proof of tax paid prevail; denial set aside.

Denial of ITC solely because the relevant invoices/tax did not reflect in Form GSTR-2A was in issue. The HC held that non-remittance of tax by the supplier cannot, by itself, disentitle the recipient to ITC; the decisive enquiry is whether the transactions are genuine and whether the recipient proves payment of tax to the supplier through appropriate evidence, consistent with SC guidance in Ecom Gill Coffee Trading. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside to the extent it denied ITC, and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority to afford an opportunity to adduce evidence and, if satisfied as to bona fides and genuineness, grant ITC.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the challenge to an assessment order limiting input tax credit, based on discrepancies in GSTR 2A, for the assessment year 2017-18.

Challenge to Assessment Order:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order limiting input tax credit for CGST and SGST, claiming higher credit than allowed due to discrepancies in GSTR 2A. The petitioner argued that the assessing authority should independently examine the claim of input tax credit, citing relevant case laws.

Conditions for Availing Input Tax Credit:
The conditions prescribed in Section 16(2) of the GST Act must be fulfilled for a dealer to avail credit of any input tax. The petitioner contended that all conditions under Section 16(2) were met, including payment of tax to the seller dealer and issuance of valid tax invoice.

Interpretation of Section 16 and Case Laws:
The judgment referred to the interpretation of Section 16 and relevant case laws to emphasize that the burden of proving the correctness of input tax credit claim lies upon the purchasing dealer. Mere production of invoices or payment by cheques is insufficient to discharge this burden; genuine transactions must be proved with detailed evidence.

Denial of Input Tax Credit:
The assessment order denied higher input tax credit solely based on discrepancies in GSTR 2A, without considering the genuineness of transactions between the petitioner and the seller dealer. The burden of proof regarding tax remittance to the seller dealer lies with the petitioner, requiring evidence as per legal precedents.

Remand and Opportunity for Evidence:
The court found the denial of input tax credit in the assessment order unsustainable and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The petitioner was directed to provide evidence within fifteen days to prove the genuineness of the claim for higher input tax credit. The assessing authority was instructed to pass a fresh order based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The writ petition challenging the assessment order limiting input tax credit was finally disposed of, with directions for the petitioner to provide evidence to support the claim. The court emphasized that discrepancies in GSTR 2A alone should not be a sufficient ground to deny input tax credit, highlighting the importance of proving the genuineness of transactions.

---