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>Excess input tax credit assessment set aside due to GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B discrepancies during initial GST implementation</h1> <h3>Raju Joseph Versus State Tax Office, Assistant State Tax Officer, Commissioner Of State Goods & Service Tax Department, State Of Kerala, Union Of India</h3> Raju Joseph Versus State Tax Office, Assistant State Tax Officer, Commissioner Of State Goods & Service Tax Department, State Of Kerala, Union Of India - ... Issues:The issues involved in this case are the challenge to orders dated 14.06.2023 and 16.06.2023 regarding the availing of excess input tax credit by the petitioner based on differences between Form GSTR 2A and Form GSTR 3B for the tax period 2017-18.Excess Input Tax Credit Issue:The petitioner, a registered dealer under CGST and SGST Acts, challenged the orders alleging excess input tax credit availed due to discrepancies between Form GSTR 2A and Form GSTR 3B for the tax period 2017-18. The petitioner cited Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, which addresses issues faced by assessees in reconciling input tax credits. The Circular outlines procedures for verifying conditions under Section 16 of the CGST Act and specifies actions for cases where discrepancies in claimed input tax credit exceed Rs 5 lakh and cases where they are up to Rs 5 lakh. Notably, relaxations mentioned in the Circular do not apply to claims made after the due date for filing returns until March 2019 if the supplier did not furnish details in Form GSTR-1. The Circular clarifies that it applies to genuine errors in reporting during financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19.Judicial Precedent Reference:The petitioner's counsel referred to a judgment in Diya Agencies v. State of Kerala, where the Court emphasized that denial of input tax credit solely based on Form GSTR-2A discrepancies is not sustainable. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to substantiate their claim with evidence, remanding the matter for a fresh assessment if the claim is found to be genuine. This judgment was cited to support the petitioner's claim for input tax credit despite discrepancies in Form GSTR 2A.Judgment and Remand:Considering the Circular and the legal precedent, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the challenged orders. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Authority for reconsideration of the petitioner's input tax credit claim without strict reliance on Form GSTR 2A. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the assessed amount within fifteen days and present all relevant documents for a fresh assessment. If the Assessing Authority finds the claim unjustified, the petitioner would be liable to remit the remaining amount. The petitioner was required to appear before the Assessing Authority on a specified date to comply with the directions provided.
TaxTMI 