Order set aside to prevent double taxation due to ITC and GSTR-2B mismatch under GST rules

The HC set aside the impugned order dated 11th April 2025, holding that allowing the order would result in double taxation due to a mismatch between the claimed ITC and the inward supply statement in GSTR-2B. The Additional State Tax Officer is directed to issue intimation to the petitioner within one week of receiving the court's order. The petition was allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

• Whether the order dated 11th April, 2025 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act is legally sustainable when it includes demand for tax periods already covered and recovered under a prior order dated 1st December, 2022.
• Whether raising a demand for the same tax periods twice amounts to double taxation and is thus impermissible under the GST Act.
• What procedural safeguards and directions should be followed when reassessing input tax credit claims for remaining tax periods not covered by the earlier order.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Legality of the order dated 11th April, 2025 including previously adjudicated tax periods

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The GST Act, specifically Section 73, empowers authorities to adjudicate demands related to input tax credit mismatches. However, principles against double taxation and finality of orders under the GST regime are well recognized. The Court also invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for judicial review.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the two orders: one dated 1st December, 2022 demanding Rs.21,38,338/- for April to September 2021, and the subsequent order dated 11th April, 2025 demanding Rs.51,39,498/- for April 2021 to March 2022. It was found that the latter order subsumed the earlier period's demand, effectively duplicating the tax liability for April to September 2021.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner demonstrated, and the Standing Counsel conceded, that the demand for April to September 2021 was included twice-once in the order of December 2022 and again in April 2025. The earlier demand had already been deducted from the petitioner's cash ledger during the pendency of appeal.

Application of law to facts: The Court held that inclusion of the same tax periods in two separate demands violates the principle against double taxation. The GST Act does not permit recovery of the same tax twice for identical periods and transactions.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued lack of jurisdiction and impermissibility of double recovery. The State initially defended the order but later conceded the error upon instructions. The Court found the petitioner's submissions well-founded.

Conclusions: The order dated 11th April, 2025 is unsustainable and set aside as it results in double taxation for overlapping tax periods.

Issue 2: Procedural directions for reassessment of input tax credit claims for remaining tax periods

Relevant legal framework: Section 73 of the GST Act provides the adjudicatory framework for demands related to input tax credit mismatches. Principles of natural justice and procedural fairness require opportunity of hearing and examination of evidence before passing orders.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized the need for a fair and expeditious reassessment of the petitioner's claims for tax periods from October 2021 to March 2022, excluding the already adjudicated periods.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner was directed to produce books of account, tax invoices, and other relevant documents supporting the ITC claims for the specified period.

Application of law to facts: The Court mandated that the tax authority issue intimation within one week, provide opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order after considering evidence and submissions. The petitioner was required to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Court balanced the State's interest in tax collection with the petitioner's right to fair procedure, emphasizing adherence to timelines and avoidance of undue delay.

Conclusions: The Court directed completion of the reassessment process within six weeks from issuance of intimation, ensuring procedural fairness and finality.

---