Tax Order Challenged: Procedural Fairness Questioned in GST Act Limitation Extension and Input Tax Credit Cancellation

The HC examined the validity of a tax order challenging the extension of limitation periods under the GST Act and the retrospective cancellation of input tax credit (ITC) for suppliers. The Court found potential procedural irregularities in the tax authorities' actions, particularly the unexplained disallowance of ITC for one supplier without substantive reasoning. While not rendering a final verdict, the HC indicated significant concerns about the tax order's fairness and reserved further judicial consideration.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:

• Whether the order dated 28th August, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the West Bengal/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the said Act") for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020, was passed beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 73(10) of the said Act;
• Whether the extensions of the time limit for passing orders under Section 73(9) of the said Act, granted by notifications dated 31st March, 2023 and 28th December, 2023 under Section 168A of the said Act, are legally valid and sustainable, especially in the absence of any force majeure condition;
• Whether the reversal of input tax credit (ITC) on account of retrospective cancellation of registration of three suppliers of the petitioner was justified, particularly focusing on the disallowance of ITC related to one supplier, Shree Shyam Iron Steel Trading Company, without assigning any reasons;
• Whether the petitioner's explanation and evidence, including invoices, ledgers, and e-way bills, substantiating bona fide transactions with the suppliers whose registrations were cancelled retrospectively, were duly considered and properly adjudicated by the tax authorities.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the order passed beyond the statutory period under Section 73(10) of the said Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 73(10) of the West Bengal/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes a limitation period within which the tax authorities must pass an order for recovery of tax not paid or short paid. The limitation period is generally one year from the date of filing of the annual return, subject to extensions granted by the Government under statutory provisions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the timeline of the notifications issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, which extended the time limit for furnishing annual returns for the financial year 2019-20 initially till 28th February, 2021, and subsequently till 31st March, 2021. The petitioner contended that these extensions also governed the time limit for passing orders under Section 73(9) of the said Act.

However, the authorities subsequently issued two notifications dated 31st March, 2023 and 28th December, 2023 invoking Section 168A of the said Act, which further extended the time limit for passing orders under Section 73(9) up to 31st August, 2024. The petitioner challenged these later extensions on the ground that no force majeure condition existed to justify such extensions.

Key evidence and findings: The Court noted the sequence of statutory notifications and the absence of any explicit force majeure justification in the later notifications extending the limitation period.

Application of law to facts: The Court recognized that Section 168A empowers the Government to extend limitation periods in exceptional circumstances, typically involving force majeure or extraordinary conditions. The petitioner argued that no such conditions prevailed during the extended period, rendering the notifications invalid.

Treatment of competing arguments: While the petitioner challenged the validity of the extended limitation period, the Court did not make a final determination on this issue at this stage but recorded the submissions and adjourned the matter for further consideration.

Conclusions: The Court took cognizance of the petitioner's challenge to the validity of the extended limitation notifications but deferred any conclusive ruling pending further hearing.

Issue 2: Legality of reversal of input tax credit on account of retrospective cancellation of suppliers' registrations

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Under the GST regime, input tax credit is admissible only if the supplier is duly registered and the transaction is genuine. Retrospective cancellation of a supplier's registration can trigger reversal of ITC claimed by the recipient. Section 73(9) of the said Act provides the mechanism for recovery of tax along with interest and penalty in cases of erroneous ITC claims.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner submitted that the purchases from the three suppliers, whose registrations were retrospectively cancelled, were made in the regular course of business and in good faith. To support this, the petitioner produced invoices, ledgers, and e-way bills for the relevant period. The tax authority accepted the petitioner's explanation and allowed ITC in respect of two suppliers but disallowed ITC related to one supplier, Shree Shyam Iron Steel Trading Company, without assigning any reasons.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's documentary evidence included invoices, ledger accounts, and e-way bills demonstrating bona fide transactions. The tax authority's order acknowledged the petitioner's explanation for two suppliers but failed to provide any rationale for disallowing ITC with respect to the third supplier.

Application of law to facts: The Court emphasized that the exercise of jurisdiction by the tax authority must be reasoned and fair. The failure to assign reasons for disallowing ITC on one supplier, while allowing it on others under similar circumstances, amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction properly.

Treatment of competing arguments: The State respondents sought time to take instructions regarding the disallowance of ITC for the third supplier, indicating that the matter required further examination.

Conclusions: The Court observed that the impugned order's selective disallowance without reasons was unsustainable and warranted further consideration.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court preserved the following crucial legal reasoning verbatim:

"Although the proper officer had accepted the explanation given by the petitioner in respect of two suppliers, however, in respect of one particular supplier, namely, Shree Shyam Iron Steel Trading Company without assigning any reason the reversal of input tax credit was upheld. This according to her is a failure to exercise jurisdiction."

Core principles established include:

• Extension of limitation periods under the GST Act must be justified by exceptional circumstances, typically force majeure, and cannot be arbitrarily extended;
• The tax authorities must exercise their jurisdiction fairly and provide reasoned orders, especially when disallowing input tax credit claims based on retrospective cancellation of supplier registrations;
• Petitioners are entitled to rely on bona fide transactions supported by proper documentation, and arbitrary disallowance without reasons constitutes a failure of jurisdiction.

Final determinations on each issue were reserved for further hearing

---