9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1805 - HC - GSTEntitlement to claim ITC - allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner claimed Input Tax Credit in respect of supplies made by Global Bitumen though the supplier was found to be non-existent and non-operational at the declared place of business - HELD THAT - Upon going through the orders passed by the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority this Court finds that such documents were also produced by the petitioner before such authorities. Though the authorities both original as well as the appellate proceeded on the basis that there was no actual physical movement of the goods but the petitioner has produced documents before this Court in support of his contention that there was actual physical movement of the goods. Such documents which are available on records does not appear to have been considered by either of the authorities. Such authorities also did not return any finding as to whether the supplier complied with the provisions of the WBGST Act 2017 with regard to payment of the tax and duty and filing of the returns for the relevant period. 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. 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. The question as to whether the supplier has paid the tax and duty is also one of the relevant factor for the purpose of deciding as to whether the petitioner is entitled to avail of the Input Tax Credit for the transactions in question - Such a factual adjudication has not been made either by the adjudicating authority or by the appellate authority. This Court is therefore of the considered view that both the authorities failed to perform their duty vested upon them by the statute - this Court is inclined to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly the order of the appellate authority dated March 17 2025 and the order of the adjudicating authority dated April 15 2024 are set aside and quashed. The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Entitlement to Input Tax Credit despite subsequent cancellation of supplier's registration The petitioner contended that at the time of supply, the supplier was a valid registered person under the GST Act, and the cancellation of the supplier's registration was retrospective and subject to a pending writ petition. The petitioner relied on statutory provisions that entitle a registered person to claim ITC if the supplier is registered and the supply is genuine at the relevant time. The Court noted that the retrospective cancellation does not ipso facto disqualify the petitioner's claim for ITC for the period when the supplier's registration was valid. The Court emphasized that the authorities failed to examine whether the supplier complied with the statutory requirements such as payment of tax and filing of returns for the relevant period, which are crucial to determine the petitioner's entitlement. The authorities' failure to make any finding on the supplier's compliance was a significant omission, as the payment of tax by the supplier is a relevant factor under the GST framework for allowing ITC to the recipient. Substantiation of actual physical movement of goods The revenue authorities held that there was no actual physical movement of goods, leading to the conclusion that the transactions were bogus. The petitioner produced extensive documentary evidence including tax invoices, E-waybills, RTGS payment details, delivery and transportation cost certificates issued by the supplier, ledger accounts, GSTR 2A summaries, and GST dealer search details showing the supplier's return filings. The Court found that these documents, which are prescribed under the GST statute and rules for evidencing movement of goods, were not adequately considered by the authorities. The authorities focused narrowly on the absence of freight payment receipts and toll receipts without giving due regard to the other substantial evidence presented. The Court held that the authorities' approach was mechanical and lacked a proper inquiry into the authenticity and sufficiency of the evidence produced by the petitioner. The failure to evaluate the totality of documents and to verify compliance with statutory conditions was a procedural lapse. Consideration of documentary evidence and procedural fairness The petitioner produced the relevant documents before both the adjudicating and appellate authorities, but the latter affirmed the original order without independent scrutiny. The Court observed that the authorities did not return any reasoned findings on the authenticity or adequacy of the documents. Nor did they inquire whether the supplier had discharged its tax liabilities and complied with GST filing requirements, which are essential conditions for availing ITC. The Court underscored that the authorities are mandated to pass reasoned orders after giving an opportunity of hearing and after considering all relevant material on record. The failure to do so amounted to non-performance of statutory duties. Effect of retrospective cancellation of supplier's registration The Court acknowledged that the supplier's registration was cancelled retrospectively, but held that this alone does not justify denial of ITC to the petitioner for the period when the supplier was validly registered. The Court noted that the petitioner's entitlement depends on compliance with statutory conditions at the relevant time, not on subsequent cancellation. The Court further observed that the cancellation itself was subject to a pending writ petition, thereby casting doubt on its finality. Application of law to facts and treatment of competing arguments The Court applied the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, including Sections 50 and 73(9), which govern the recovery of ineligible ITC with interest and penalty. However, the Court emphasized that such provisions must be applied after a proper factual determination of eligibility based on evidence. The petitioner's argument that the supplier complied with all statutory requirements and that the ITC claim was bonafide was supported by documentary evidence. The State's argument rested on the absence of certain transport-related documents and the retrospective cancellation of supplier's registration. The Court found the State's reliance on the absence of freight receipts and toll payments insufficient to conclusively establish the absence of physical movement, especially when other statutory documents such as E-waybills and GST returns were produced. The Court also found fault with the authorities for not considering the supplier's compliance with tax payment and return filing, which is a critical factor in determining eligibility for ITC. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court set aside and quashed the orders of both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority, holding that:
The Court remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority with directions to:
No order as to costs was made.
|
