TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax Credit Claim Rejected: Petitioner Fails to Respond to Show Cause Notice and Provide Supporting Evidence Under Section 155</h1> <h3>Ansil Ibrahim Versus Assistant Commissioner Second Circle, State Goods & Service Tax Department, Alappuzha, Union Of India, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes & Customs, State Of Kerala, State Tax Officer,</h3> 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 ... Denial of Input Tax Credit - failure to discharge burden on the dealer for claiming input tax credit - Section 155 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- Section 155 of the GST Act is in respect of the burden on the dealer for claiming input tax credit - If there is a difference between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B, then it is for the assessee/dealer to prove his claim of input tax credit by leading cogent and credible evidence for his claim regarding input tax credit. In the present case, the petitioner, despite show cause notice, chose not to provide any evidence in respect of his claim for the input tax credit, nor did he appear for a hearing on the date fixed. When the petitioner himself has given up his right to prove his claim for the input tax credit, this Court cannot help such an assessee by entertaining this writ petition. There are no substance in the present writ petition, which is hereby rejected. 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
