TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respect of the relevant financial year, the petitioner effected certain purchases which are covered by Exts.P5 to P72 invoices from the respondents 2 and 3. According to the petitioner, those are proper tax invoices in the relevant formats in the CGST Act and the respondents 2 and 3 have collected tax from the petitioner in respect of the same. The said documents contain e-way bills corresponding to the invoices issued, indicating the transportation of the goods covered by the invoices as well. On the basis of the same, the petitioner submitted it's returns and claimed input tax credit in respect of invoices referred to above. However, the 2nd and 3rd respondents failed to furnish the details of the supplies made to the petitioner as per the relevant invoices and did not pay the tax covered by the same. It was in these circumstances, Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances challenging Ext.P3. 3. A counter statement was submitted by the respondents 1 and 4, controverting the averments contained in the writ petition and also opposing the reliefs sought. 4. Even though notices to the respondents 2 and 3 were se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, as per the invoices. It is pointed out that the petitioner was already issued with notice in this regard before the issuance of Ext.P3, but no effective steps have been taken. Therefore, going by the statutory stipulations contained in Section 16 (2) (c), the issuance of Ext.P3 cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the respondent sought dismissal of this writ petition. 8. With regard to the period of limitation, the learned standing counsel brought to the notice of this Court, Annexure R1(a), which is the notification No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, wherein, the time limit for issuing a final order under Section 73 has been extended up to 31.08.2024. Thus, it was pointed out that, since the time limit for issuance of the final order is extended up to 31.08.2024, the show cause notice could have been issued by the respondents, three months before 31.08.2024. Thus, it was pointed out that, notice was issued within the extended time and thus legally sustainable. 9. I have carefully gone through the records and examined the relevant statutory provisions. While considering the afore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s communicated shall be added to the output tax liability of the recipient, in such manner as may be prescribed, in his return for the month succeeding the month in which the discrepancy is communicated. (6) The amount claimed as input tax credit that is found to be in excess on account of duplication of claims shall be added to the output tax liability of the recipient in his return for the month in which the duplication is communicated. (7) The recipient shall be eligible to reduce, from his output tax liability, the amount added under sub-section (5), if the supplier declares the details of the invoice or debit note in his valid return within the time specified in sub-section (9) of Section 39. (8) A recipient in whose output tax liability any amount has been added under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6), shall be liable to pay interest at the rate specified under sub-section (1) of Section 50 on the amount so added from the date of availing of credit till the corresponding additions are made under the said sub-sections. (9) Where any reduction in output tax liability is accepted under sub-section (7), the interest paid under sub-sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....follows: "8. In the reply submitted by the appellant to the said show cause notice the appellant had clearly stated that they are in possession of the tax invoice, they had received the goods and services or both and the payment has been made to the supplier of the goods or services or both. The reason for denying the input tax credit is on the ground that the detail of the supplier is not reflecting in GSTR 1 of the supplier. The appellant had pointed out that they are in possession of a valid tax invoice and payment details to the supplier have been substantiated by producing the tax invoice and the bank statement. The appellant also referred to the press release dated 18.10.2018. What we find is that the first respondent has not conducted any enquiry on the fourth respondent supplier more particularly when clarification has been issued where furnishing of outward details in Form GSTR 1 by a corresponding supplier and the facility to view the same in Form GSTR 2A by the recipient is in the nature of tax payer facilitation and does not impact the ability of the tax payers to avail input tax credit on self-assessment basis in consonance with the provisions of Section 16 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia (P) Ltd( supra). From the observations in the said decision, it is discernible that, Section 9 of the DVAT Act, contained a specific stipulation that the input tax credit could be claimed by the purchaser only if the supplier had paid the said tax and filed the relevant returns. In Santi Kiran India (P) Ltd.(supra), the Honourable Supreme Court took note of the observations made by the High Court of Delhi in On Quest Merchandising India Pvt.Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. [2017 SCC Online Delhi 11286] in respect of the very same provisions of the DVAT Act, wherein, the Delhi High Court read down the statutory stipulations contained in Section 9 and held that unless the supplier is proceeded against first and if such proceedings did not materialise, the recovery proceedings can be initiated against the purchaser. The decision of the High Court in On Quest Merchandising India Pvt Ltd's case, was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court but the SLP was rejected. The same issue was taken up in Santi Kiran India (P) Ltd's case and no interference was made in the decision of the Delhi High Court and thus, the decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi under Section....