Tax Credit Claim Rejected: Petitioner Fails to Respond to Show Cause Notice and Provide Supporting Evidence Under Section 155

Writ petition challenging denial of input tax credit (Rs. 98,479 under CGST/SGST) was dismissed. HC upheld tax authority's decision based on Form GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B, finding petitioner failed to respond to show cause notice or provide evidence to discharge burden of proof under Section 155 of GST Act. Petitioner's non-compliance and inaction led to rejection of claim.

---

---

Issues involved: Denial of input tax credit under CGST and SGST, imposition of interest and penalty, failure to respond to show cause notice u/s 73(1) of CGST/SGST Act 2017, burden of proof u/s 155 of GST Act.

Denial of input tax credit under CGST and SGST: The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition challenging the denial of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 98,479 each under CGST and SGST by the Assessing Authority. The Authority also imposed interest and penalty, totaling Rs. 4,01,020, after issuing a show cause notice u/s 73(1) of the Act. Despite the notice, the petitioner neither responded nor appeared for a personal hearing. The Authority based its decision solely on Form GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B, as the petitioner failed to provide any evidence to discharge the burden u/s 155 of the GST Act.

Legal provisions: Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 sets out the conditions for claiming input tax credit, emphasizing the need for possession of tax invoices or other prescribed documents, receipt of goods/services, payment of tax to the Government, and filing of returns. The burden of proof for claiming input tax credit lies on the dealer as per Section 155 of the GST Act. In case of discrepancies between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B, the dealer must substantiate their claim with credible evidence.

Judgment: The Court found that the petitioner failed to provide any evidence or attend the hearing to support their claim for input tax credit. By relinquishing the opportunity to prove their case, the petitioner waived their right to challenge the denial of credit. Consequently, the Court rejected the writ petition, as it lacked substance based on the petitioner's inaction and non-compliance with the statutory requirements.

---