Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 174 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTReversal of Input Tax Credit - requirements of Section 16 (2) of WBGST Act fulfilled or not - Failure of the supplier to pay GST to the government - allegation was that the appellant had submitted that the fourth respondent has not shown the Bill in GSTR 1 and hence the appellant is not eligible to avail the credit of the input tax as per Section 16(2) of the WBGST Act, 2017 as the tax charged in respect of such supply has not been actually paid to the Government. HELD THAT:- The show cause notice does not allege that the appellant was not in possession of a tax invoice issued by the supplier registered under the Act. There is no denial of the fact that the appellant has received the goods or services or both - 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 first respondent without resorting to any action against the fourth respondent who is the selling dealer has ignored the tax invoices produced by the appellant as well as the bank statement to substantiate that they have paid the price for the goods and services rendered as well as the tax payable there on, the action of the first respondent has to be branded as arbitrarily. Therefore, before directing the appellant to reverse the input tax credit and remit the same to the government, the first respondent ought to have taken action against the fourth respondent the selling dealer and unless and until the first respondent is able to bring out the exceptional case where there has been collusion between the appellant and the fourth respondent or where the fourth respondent is missing or the fourth respondent has closed down its business or the fourth respondent does not have any assets and such other contingencies, straight away the first respondent was not justified in directing the appellant to reverse the input tax credit availed by them - the demand raised on the appellant is not sustainable. GST authorities directed to decide the matter in view of CBIC circular - Appeal allowed.
|