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>Taxpayer wins ITC adjustment case involving dual GSTIN under single PAN using Circular 183/15/2022</h1> <h3>M/s My Auto World (Kanpur) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India And 5 Others</h3> HC allowed petition challenging non-adjustment of ITC in GSTR-2A where petitioner was issued two different GSTIN against single PAN. Court applied ... Challenge to action of the respondents in not adjusting the ITC appearing in GSTR-2A - petitioner was issued two different GSTIN against one single Permanent Account Number (PAN) - HELD THAT:- Circular No.183/15/2022- GST would apply in the present case. Furthermore, the judgment in the case of M/s. Santosh Kumar [2023 (10) TMI 936 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] is on similar factual matrix and the said judgment is agreed upon where it was held that 'adopting the similar view, this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. S/s. Agrawal Rolling Mills, Mirzapur, [2003 (4) TMI 550 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that the benefit of circular, which came into existence during the pendency of the appeal, even up to the stage of revision, the benefit of same cannot be denied to the assessee.' Thus, the impugned order dated December 22, 2023 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the respondent No.4/Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Kanpur to pass a fresh order in terms of the Circular No.183/15/2022-GST. Petition allowed. Issues:Adjustment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) between two GSTINs issued against one PAN, challenge to order under CGST Act and UPGST Act, excess ITC availed, demand and recovery of alleged excess ITC, application of Circular No.183/15/2022-GST, compliance with procedure specified in Circular, quashing of impugned order, direction for fresh order.Analysis:The petitioner, engaged in the supply of TATA branded trucks, faced issues due to two GSTINs issued against one PAN. The petitioner sought adjustment of ITC between the GSTINs, leading to a challenge against the order under the CGST Act and UPGST Act. Despite repeated requests for resolution, the matter remained unresolved, impacting the petitioner's transactions with suppliers, including TATA Motors Ltd. The petitioner faced a demand for alleged excess ITC, leading to a detailed representation before authorities. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking adjustment of ITC, challenging the impugned order dated December 12, 2023.During the proceedings, the petitioner cited Circular No.183/15/2022-GST, emphasizing the need for ITC adjustment even if suppliers declared the wrong GSTIN. Reference was made to a previous judgment where similar circumstances led to the setting aside of orders and a direction for fresh consideration in line with the Circular. Respondents did not contest this proposition, agreeing to remit the matter for a fresh decision in compliance with the Circular.The Court analyzed the submissions and found that Circular No.183/15/2022-GST was applicable to the case. Drawing parallels with the previous judgment, the Court agreed with the approach taken in that case. Consequently, the impugned order dated December 22, 2023 was quashed, and a direction was issued for the Joint Commissioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with the Circular. The writ petition was allowed, providing relief to the petitioner in the matter of ITC adjustment and resolving the issues arising from the multiple GSTINs issued against one PAN.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
