https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412331 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412331 Recovery of Input Tax Credit alongwith interest and penalty - Section 73(1) read with Section 140(3) of the CGST Act,2017 - credit denied on the ground that Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) has been-received by the taxpayer after availing concessional rate of duty - exempt goods - HELD THAT:- The appellant has taken ITC amounting to Rs. 7,53,571/- on inputs held in stock as on 30.06.2017 in Trans-1 under the provisions of Section 140(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. Inputs contained in semi finished and finished goods - HELD THAT:- As per Section 2(59) of the CGST Act,2017, Inputs means any goods other than capital goods used or intended to be used by a supplier in course of furtherance of business. Whereas as per Section 2(52) of the said Act Goods means every kind of movable property other than money and securities but includes actionable claim, growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before supply or under a contract of supply - appellant s claim for ITC of Rs. 7,20,147/- on inputs contained in semi finished work, does not appear to be correct, as a building under construction being attached to the earth can- not be called goods in terms of definition as per Section 2(52) mentioned above and in terms of various case laws erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, in the case of building construction, the transitional credit of inputs already used in construction and contained in WIP as on 30.06.2017 is not admissible. Therefore, wrongly transferred ITC of Rs. 7,20,147/- is recoverable from the appellant. - the appellant is not entitled to take entire ITC of Rs. 14,73,718/- (Rs. 7,53,571/- on inputs held in stock + Rs. 7,20,147/- on inputs contained in semi finished finished goods) in TRAN-1. Jurisdiction of issuance of SCN and passing of Impugned Order under Section 73 read with Rule 142 of the CGST Act/Rules, 2017 - proceedings initiated under Section 73 of the CGST Act, leading to confirmation of demand and recovery of transitional credit under Section 73(9) read with Rule 142 - HELD THAT:- The appellant have irregularly carried forward the ITC of Rs. 14,73,718/- deliberately with intent to avail irregular ITC. Had the information not been disclosed during the audit of the records, the facts would not have come to knowledge of the department. Thus, the appellant appears to have suppressed the facts from the department with intent to avail irregular ITC. In this manner, they appear to have contravened the provisions of Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the provisions of Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 are invokable for recovery of the said credit of Rs. 14,73,718/- from them. The appellant also appears liable to pay interest in terms of Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 and penalty in terms of Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017. The audit of records of the Appellant for the period from April. 2016 to June, 2017 was carried out by the audit team from office of the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Circle-A Jaipur during June, July August, 2018 and the audit observations were conveyed vide lAR No. 08/2018-19 (new) / 506/2017-18 (old) dated 24.09.2018. However, even after pointed out by the audit team of the department, the appellant has not deposited such irregular/wrongly taken and utilized ITC of Rs. 14,73,718/- - there was no facility/module to serve GST DRC-01 electronically on the common portal at the time of issuance of show cause notice, therefore the same was issued manually by the jurisdictional authority. Appeal dismissed. Case-Laws GST Fri, 23 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530