2025 (2) TMI 504 - HC - GST

GST input tax credit denied for failure to prove actual receipt of goods under Section 16(2)(b)

M/s. Devi Traders, Represented by its Proprietor Ayyappan Versus The State Tax Officer (Inspection) 5, Investigation Wing, Tirunelveli

M/s. Devi Traders, Represented by its Proprietor Ayyappan Versus The State Tax Officer (Inspection) 5, Investigation Wing, Tirunelveli - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this case were:Whether the petitioners were entitled to cross-examine Charles and his wife Shanthi, the proprietors of the suppliers involved, and whether the denial of such cross-examination constituted a violation of natural justice principles.Whether the petitioners were entitled to avail input tax credit (ITC) based on the transactions with the suppliers, given the alleged non-movement of goods and the suppliers' non-payment of taxes.Whether the assessment orders against the petitioners amounted to double taxation, considering the tax demands against the suppliers.Whether the petitioners had an alternate remedy through the appellate process under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Cross-examination of SuppliersRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioners argued that the denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice. The Court previously ordered cross-examination in an earlier round of litigation.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the statements of Charles and Shanthi were recorded in the presence of the petitioners, and thus, the lack of cross-examination was not deemed fatal to the proceedings.Key Evidence and Findings: The statements were obtained with the petitioners present, and the Court found no procedural impropriety in relying on these statements.Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that since the statements were recorded with the petitioners' knowledge, the absence of cross-examination did not constitute a breach of natural justice.Conclusions: The petitioners' request for cross-examination was denied, as the statements were not obtained behind their backs.Issue 2: Entitlement to Input Tax CreditRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referred to Section 16(2) of the TNGST Act, 2017, which requires the recipient to be in possession of tax invoices and to have received the goods to claim ITC.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized the burden of proof on the petitioners to demonstrate the actual receipt of goods and the genuineness of transactions.Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioners failed to provide evidence of the physical movement of goods, such as e-way bills.Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the petitioners did not meet the statutory requirements for claiming ITC, as there was no proof of goods receipt.Conclusions: The ITC claims were denied due to the lack of documentary evidence supporting the receipt and movement of goods.Issue 3: Double TaxationRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioners argued that the tax demands on both them and the suppliers resulted in double taxation.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court did not find merit in the double taxation argument, as the petitioners failed to establish valid ITC claims.Key Evidence and Findings: The suppliers had not paid the taxes, and the petitioners could not substantiate their claims.Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the petitioners' inability to prove receipt of goods negated their double taxation claim.Conclusions: The argument of double taxation was dismissed due to the invalidity of the ITC claims.Issue 4: Alternate RemedyRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The respondents argued that the petitioners had an alternate remedy through the appellate process under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged the availability of an alternate remedy and granted the petitioners liberty to pursue it.Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioners sought to challenge the assessment orders through writ petitions instead of the appellate process.Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the petitioners should have utilized the statutory appellate remedy available to them.Conclusions: The Court dismissed the writ petitions but allowed the petitioners to file statutory appeals within 30 days.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the burden of proof for claiming ITC lies with the petitioners, and they failed to demonstrate the receipt of goods and the genuineness of transactions.The Court ruled that the absence of cross-examination was not a violation of natural justice, as the statements were recorded in the presence of the petitioners.The Court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the petitioners' failure to substantiate their claims with necessary documentation.The Court granted the petitioners liberty to challenge the assessment orders through the appellate process under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, within 30 days.