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>Assessment order rejecting ITC claim under Section 16(4) set aside for reassessment following statutory amendments</h1> <h3>M/s. Moon Match Works Versus The State Tax Officer, Kovilpatti.</h3> M/s. Moon Match Works Versus The State Tax Officer, Kovilpatti. - 2025 (92) G. S. T. L. 537 (Mad.) Issues:1. Rejection of Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on Section 16(4) of the GST Act.2. Discrepancies between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B.3. Discrepancies between e-way bill and GSTR-3B.Detailed Analysis:1. The primary issue in the present Writ Petition is the rejection of the petitioner's claim of ITC under Section 16(4) of the GST Act. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 for the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner's counsel argues that an amendment has been made to the GST Act, specifically Section 16(5) inserted via Section 118 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. This new provision allows for the entitlement of input tax credit in certain cases. The counsel contends that due to this amendment, the reasons cited by the adjudicating authority for rejecting the ITC claim may no longer be valid, necessitating a reassessment by the respondent.2. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, agrees to re-do the assessment in light of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. Additionally, the respondent addresses other issues raised, such as variances between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, as well as discrepancies between e-way bill and GSTR-3B. The tax implications of these discrepancies are quantified as Rs. 37,890 and Rs. 49,239, respectively, which constitute a small percentage of the total liability. The respondent proposes that the petitioner may file objections regarding these issues upon depositing the entire tax amount due, which the petitioner consents to.3. Consequently, the High Court sets aside the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 and directs the petitioner to deposit the total tax amount due on issues other than the rejection of ITC within two weeks. Upon compliance, the impugned order will be treated as a show cause notice, allowing the petitioner to submit objections within three weeks. Any filed objections will be considered, and orders will be passed after providing a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing. The Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
TaxTMI 