TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 955
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. The petitioner's claim for the input tax credit of Rs. 44,51,943.08/- for CGST and SGST has been limited at excess claim of Rs. 1,04,376.05/- as CGST and same amount as SGST credit has been denied on the ground that as per the GSTR 2A in respect of invoice supply, the tax payer is only eligible for input tax amount shown in CGSTR 2A. 2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of input tax credit cannot be denied merely on the ground of amount mentioned in the GSTR 2A for which the petitioner does not have any control. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the assessing authority is required to independently examine the claim of input tax credit of the assessee irrespective of the amount mentione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of disallowance of input tax credit. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has supplier dealers and, if they have not deposited the tax paid by the petitioner, petitioner cannot be asked to pay the tax again . 5. The Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs had issued press release dated 18.10.2018 clarifying that furnishing of outward details in Form GSTR-1 by the corresponding supplier(s) and the facility to view the same in Form GSTR-2A by the receipent is in the nature of taxpayer facilitiation and does not impact the ability of the tax payer to avail ITC on self-assessment basis in consonance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. Further, it has been clarified that the apprehension that ITC can be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. 6. The Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka v. M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited (supra) has held while interpreting the Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 which are in respect of claim of input tax credit under KVAT and similar to the provisions of Section 16 of the GST Act has held that; clearly stipulate that the burden of proving that the ITC claim is correct lies upon the purchasing dealer claiming such ITC. Burden of proof is that the ITC claim is correct and is squarely upon the assessee who has to discharge the said burden. Merely because the dealer claiming such ITC claims that he is a bonafide purchaser is not enough and sufficient. The burden of proving the correctness of ITC remains upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enuine are the matter on facts and evidence. The petitioner has to discharge the burden of proof regarding the remittance of tax to the seller dealer by giving evidence as mentioned in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka v. M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited (supra). 8. In view thereof, I find that the impugned Exhibit P-1 assessment order so far denial of the input tax credit to the petitioner is not sustainable, and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to give opportunity to the petitioner for his claim for input tax credit. If on examination of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, the assessing officer is satisfied that the claim is bonafide and genuine, the petitioner should be ....