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 Authorities Must Comprehensively Review Input Tax Credit Claims, Reassess Documentation, and Provide Fair Hearing to Petitioner</h1> <h3>M/s. Sri Shanmuga Hardwares Electricals, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr. R. Shanmugam Versus The State Tax Officer</h3> HC ruled in favor of petitioner challenging Input Tax Credit (ITC) assessment orders. The court quashed existing orders and directed reassessment, ... Validity of separate assessment orders - ITC claim rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner had not claimed ITC in the GSTR-3B returns - HELD THAT:- When the registered person asserts that he is eligible for ITC by referring to GSTR-2A and GSTR-9 returns, the assessing officer should examine whether the ITC claim is valid by examining all relevant documents, including by calling upon the registered person to provide such documents. In this case, it appears that the claim was rejected entirely on the ground that the GSTR-3B returns did not reflect the ITC claim. Therefore, interference is warranted with the orders impugned herein. The orders impugned herein are quashed and these matters are remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to place all documents pertaining to its ITC claims before the assessing officer within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off. Issues Involved:The petitioner challenges separate assessment orders for three assessment years regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Eligibility of ITC claimsThe petitioner, engaged in trade of electrical products and hardware, asserts eligibility for ITC in the mentioned assessment periods, supported by GSTR-2A and GSTR-9 returns. The rejection of ITC claims in the impugned orders was solely due to non-claiming of ITC in GSTR-3B returns, as highlighted by the petitioner's counsel.Issue 2: Burden of Proof and Statutory RemedyThe respondent argues that the burden of proof lies on the registered person to establish ITC eligibility and suggests that the petitioner should have availed the statutory remedy instead of approaching the Court. The respondent contends that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof, justifying no interference with the impugned orders.Issue 3: Rejection of ITC ClaimThe orders under scrutiny rejected the petitioner's ITC claims solely on the ground of non-claiming in GSTR-3B returns, as exemplified in the order for the assessment year 2017-2018. The Court emphasized that the assessing officer should thoroughly examine the validity of ITC claims based on all relevant documents, rather than solely relying on GSTR-3B returns.Judgment Outcome:The Court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matters for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted two weeks to submit all documents related to ITC claims, following which the assessing officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh assessment orders within two months. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
