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>Eligible taxpayers can claim GST Input Tax Credit under government circulars for technical issues and supplier defaults with proper documentation</h1> <h3>M/s. HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL, SHAHAR ABDUL JABBAR, MUNDACKAL COLOUR HOUSE, M/s. ACHU TRADERS, BROTHERS CONSTRUCTIONS, CASCADE ENGINEERS INDIA, VENUGOPAL. P., HASEENA. R., M/s. LAVIA INFRA LIMITED AND OTHER Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER</h3> The HC addressed GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims amid implementation challenges during 2017-2019. The court held that eligible petitioners could claim ... Non-refelction of remitted GST in return GSTR due to some technical reasons - failure to remit GST on the supply made but there are valid tax invoices, proof of payment of the value of goods along with the GST component to the respective suppliers - no clear proof of payment of consideration and tax towards the inward supply and non-receipt of goods in possession - HELD THAT:- Similar questions of facts and law involved in these writ petitions in M/S. M. TRADE LINKS [2024 (6) TMI 288 - KERALA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'The time limit for furnishing the return for the month of September is to be treated as 30th November in each financial year with effect from 01.07.2017, in respect of the petitioners who had filed their returns for the month of September on or before 30th November, and their claim for ITC should be processed, if they are otherwise eligible for ITC.' Conclusion - Procedural amendments to tax laws can be applied retrospectively to ensure fairness, and that remedial measures should be available to address bona fide compliance issues. Petition disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime despite technical or procedural issues in filing returns or supplier defaults.Whether the procedural amendments regarding the filing of GST returns should have retrospective effect, specifically concerning the time limit for furnishing returns under Section 39 of the CGST/SGST Act.The constitutional validity of Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Act.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Entitlement to ITC Despite Procedural or Supplier DefaultsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The judgment considers the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act, particularly Section 16, which governs the conditions for availing ITC. The court also referenced Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST and Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST, which provide guidance on ITC claims under specific circumstances.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court recognized the initial challenges faced during the implementation of the GST regime, particularly the non-availability of GSTR 2A in the financial years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The court interpreted the circulars as remedial measures to address bona fide claims and procedural mistakes.Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that some petitioners had proof of tax payment to suppliers, while others lacked evidence of payment or receipt of goods. The circulars were found to cover scenarios where the tax was paid but not reflected due to technical issues.Application of Law to Facts: The court allowed petitioners to approach GST authorities within 30 days to claim benefits under the circulars, provided they could demonstrate compliance with the conditions outlined.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court balanced the need for procedural compliance with the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers during the GST rollout, emphasizing fairness and the intent of the legislative framework.Conclusions: The court concluded that eligible petitioners could claim ITC under the specified circulars, subject to verification by GST authorities.Issue 2: Retrospective Effect of Procedural AmendmentsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The focus was on Section 39 of the CGST/SGST Act, which was amended to extend the deadline for filing returns from 30th September to 30th November.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court deemed the amendment procedural, intended to alleviate initial compliance difficulties. It emphasized the need for retrospective application to ensure fairness and consistency.Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that many taxpayers filed returns by 30th November, aligning with the extended deadline, and thus should not be penalized for missing the original deadline.Application of Law to Facts: The court directed that claims for ITC filed by 30th November should be processed, provided other eligibility criteria were met.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court dismissed arguments against retrospective application, highlighting the procedural nature of the amendment.Conclusions: The court held that the extended deadline should be applied retrospectively from 01.07.2017, ensuring equitable treatment of taxpayers.Issue 3: Constitutional Validity of Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4)Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) set conditions for availing ITC, including supplier compliance.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court upheld the constitutional validity of these provisions, finding them consistent with the legislative intent and framework of GST.Key Evidence and Findings: The court found no compelling evidence to suggest these sections were unconstitutional or unfairly prejudicial.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the provisions as intended, without modification or invalidation.Treatment of Competing Arguments: Arguments challenging the sections were rejected, with the court emphasizing the need for supplier compliance to maintain the integrity of the GST system.Conclusions: The court concluded that Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) are constitutionally valid.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'The Government had realized the difficulty in the initial rollout of the GST regime... and considered that GSTR 2A was not available initially.'Core Principles Established: The judgment establishes that procedural amendments to tax laws can be applied retrospectively to ensure fairness, and that remedial measures should be available to address bona fide compliance issues.Final Determinations on Each Issue: Eligible petitioners may claim ITC under specified circulars; procedural amendments to filing deadlines are retrospective; Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) are constitutionally valid.In conclusion, the court provided a balanced approach to address initial GST implementation challenges, ensuring procedural fairness while upholding the integrity of the legislative framework.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
