TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Writ petition dismissed for wrongly claiming input tax credit using incorrect supplier GSTIN numbers</h1> The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging denial of input tax credit and demand of differential tax. The petitioner wrongly availed input tax credit ... Validity of assessment order - denial of input tax credit - demand of differential input tax - input tax credit based on the wrong GSTIN wrongly availed - HELD THAT:- As far as the denial of input tax credit is concerned, there appears to be discrepancy in the GST and the number given by the Supplier in the invoice raised by the Supplier on the petitioner. The petitioner can get suitable certificate from the supplier that the sale was indeed made to the petitioner. It is noticed that the petitioner had filed returns for the assessment year 2017-2018 on 30.04.2022, which is the belated returns filed by the petitioner. In the return that was filed belatedly by the petitioner, the petitioner has accepted the short payment declared as the taxable turnover and yet had failed to pay the tax in time. The petitioner paid the tax only on 04.06.2022 - There is an inordinate delay in payment admitted tax liability in the return that was filed on 30.04.2022 for the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner cannot take advantage of its own mistake and state that the petitioner is not liable to pay penalty on account of belated filing of returns in GSTR 9 on 30.04.2022. There is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as tax was belatedly paid on 04.06.2022. The interest on belated payment of tax for the month of July, 2017, was remitted by the petitioner only on 27.12.2022. The payment was not within 30 days from the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2022. The Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2022 preceded an audit, issuance of audit report in GST ADT-02 on 19.08.2022 - the Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is therefore liable to be dismissed. The petitioner can give proper explanation for the discrepancy in the GST number and in the invoices raised by the supplier, namely Vinvent Chemilab Private Limited and Moorthy Industries - Petition dismissed. Issues involved: Impugned assessment order u/s 73(9) read with 73(1) of CGST Act for AY 2017-2018, mismatch in input tax credit, penalty imposition u/s 122(1)(iii) r/w 73(9) of CGST Act, alternate remedy u/s 107 of CGST Act, denial of input tax credit due to wrong GSTIN, interest and penalty imposition for delayed tax remittance.The petitioner challenged the impugned assessment order confirming demands for short payment of tax, excess availed ineligible Input Tax Credit, interest, and penalties. The petitioner argued that the demand for differential input tax lacked legal basis due to amendments in the Rules introducing GSTR 2A. Regarding penalties imposed for delayed tax payment, the petitioner contended that penalties under Section 122(1)(iii) were wrongly applied. The respondent, however, defended the assessment, citing discrepancies in invoices and denial of input tax credit based on incorrect GSTIN. The respondent highlighted the petitioner's failure to remit tax on time, justifying interest and penalty imposition.The petitioner relied on Sections 61(3) and 73(8) of the GST Act, emphasizing the need for satisfactory explanations and corrective measures for discrepancies. The respondent argued against the writ petition's merit, suggesting the petitioner's recourse to the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Discrepancies in input tax credit due to wrong GSTIN were pointed out, justifying the denial of credit. The respondent also detailed the audit process and subsequent actions leading to the impugned order.The court considered arguments from both sides and found no merit in the petitioner's submissions. Noting the belated tax payment and delayed interest remittance, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner was directed to provide explanations for GST discrepancies to the appellate Commissioner. The court's observations were specified as not influencing the appellate authority's independent decision. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to appeal, without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
