Petitioner wins ITC dispute as authorities failed to prove supplier's tax non-compliance during valid registration period

HC ruled in favor of petitioner regarding ITC availment where supplier was allegedly non-existent. Court held that revenue authorities failed to properly examine whether statutory requirements for ITC were met, focusing only on payment documents without investigating goods movement or supplier's tax compliance. Though supplier's registration was later cancelled, it was valid during relevant period. Authorities failed to determine if supplier paid requisite taxes, which is crucial for ITC eligibility. Revenue did not establish petitioner's ineligibility before demanding recovery with interest and penalty. Petition disposed favorably.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court include:

• Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in respect of supplies made by a supplier whose registration was subsequently cancelled with retrospective effect.
• Whether the petitioner produced sufficient evidence to establish the actual physical movement of goods, a prerequisite for claiming ITC.
• Whether the adjudicating and appellate authorities properly considered all relevant documents and complied with statutory requirements before holding the petitioner liable for ineligible ITC along with interest and penalty.
• The legal effect of retrospective cancellation of the supplier's registration on the petitioner's claim for ITC.
• Whether the authorities erred in not examining whether the supplier had complied with the provisions of the GST Act, including payment of tax and filing of returns, which are relevant to the petitioner's entitlement to ITC.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to Input Tax Credit despite retrospective cancellation of supplier's registration

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, governs the eligibility for claiming ITC. Section 16 of the CGST Act prescribes conditions for availing ITC, including that the recipient must possess a tax invoice and the supplier must have paid the tax to the government. Retrospective cancellation of registration affects the supplier's status but does not ipso facto invalidate transactions carried out during the period when the registration was valid.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that at the relevant time of supply (March 26 to 28, 2019), the supplier's registration was valid. The retrospective cancellation was the subject matter of a pending writ petition and did not automatically disentitle the petitioner from claiming ITC for transactions during the valid period. The Court emphasized that the authorities failed to consider this crucial fact.

Application of law to facts: Since the supplier was validly registered at the time of supply, the petitioner prima facie had the right to claim ITC, subject to compliance with other statutory conditions.

Treatment of competing arguments: The State argued that the retrospective cancellation invalidated the ITC claim, but the Court rejected this without any conclusive finding on the retrospective effect, noting the matter was sub judice and the petitioner's claim had not been adjudicated on merits in this regard.

Conclusion: The retrospective cancellation alone could not justify denial of ITC without a proper factual and legal inquiry.

Issue 2: Sufficiency and consideration of evidence regarding actual physical movement of goods

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The GST laws require documentary proof of supply and movement of goods, such as tax invoices, E-waybills, payment receipts, and transport documents, to establish the genuineness of transactions and entitlement to ITC.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner produced multiple documents including invoices, E-waybills, RTGS payment details, certificates regarding terms of delivery and transportation costs, ledger accounts, summaries of GSTR 2A returns, and dealer search details from the GST official website. These documents indicated that the supplier had filed returns and paid taxes for the relevant period.

The Court observed that both the adjudicating and appellate authorities did not adequately consider these documents and relied primarily on the absence of certain documents like freight payment receipts and toll receipts to conclude there was no physical movement of goods.

Key evidence and findings: The documents produced by the petitioner were on record before the authorities and this Court. The authorities failed to scrutinize or verify the authenticity of these documents or to make any factual finding on whether the supplier complied with GST obligations.

Application of law to facts: The petitioner's production of statutory documents such as E-waybills and GST returns prima facie established the movement of goods and compliance by the supplier. The absence of certain ancillary documents alone could not disprove the physical movement.

Treatment of competing arguments: The State's contention that the petitioner failed to produce documents relating to freight payment and toll receipts was found insufficient to negate the other substantial documentary evidence presented.

Conclusion: The authorities erred in not considering the full spectrum of evidence and in mechanically affirming the absence of physical movement without proper inquiry.

Issue 3: Failure of authorities to perform statutory duties and conduct proper factual adjudication

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The adjudicating authority and appellate authority are required under the GST Act to conduct a reasoned inquiry, verify documents, and provide findings on compliance with statutory conditions before denying ITC and imposing penalties.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that both authorities failed to examine whether the supplier had paid tax and filed returns, which is a critical factor for the petitioner's entitlement to ITC. They also failed to consider the evidence produced and did not conduct a detailed factual inquiry or issue reasoned findings on these points.

Application of law to facts: The absence of such inquiry and reasoned findings rendered the orders unsustainable. The authorities' reliance on incomplete evidence and failure to consider statutory compliance by the supplier constituted a failure to discharge their statutory duties.

Conclusion: The Court held that both orders were liable to be set aside for failure to perform the duties vested in the authorities under the statute.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"Though the registration of the supplier may have been cancelled subsequently but it is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time such registration was valid."

"Such documents which are available on records does not appear to have been considered by either of the authorities."

"The original authority as well as the appellate authority only laid emphasis on the documents with regard to payment of freight charges, toll tax receipt etc. without making any endeavour to look into the materials available on records with regard to movement of goods and also failed to enquire into as to whether the requirements for availing Input Tax Credit as prescribed in the statute has been complied with or not."

"The revenue has also not returned any finding whether the stand of the petitioner that the supplier has complied with the provisions under the GST Act to enable the petitioner to avail of the input tax credit is correct or not before arriving at a finding that the petitioner is liable to pay ineligible ITC claimed and availed by him along with interest and penalty."

"This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that both the authorities failed to perform their duty vested upon them by the statute."

The Court set aside and quashed the orders of the adjudicating and appellate authorities and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. The adjudicating authority was directed to consider all materials produced by the petitioner, verify their authenticity, and pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing within six weeks.

---