9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 98 - HC - GSTEntitlement for input tax credit for alleged transaction having been taken place between the supplier Shree Radhey International Delhi and petitioner in the year 2018 - HELD THAT - Section 16(2) was amended and sub-section (2)(c) was amended to the extent that the words or Section 43A were omitted by Finance Act 2022 w.e.f. 01.10.2022. Moreover Section 41 which previously dealt with claim of input tax credit and provisional acceptance thereof was also substituted by Finance Act 2022 w.e.f. 01.10.2022 with availment of input tax credit . In the case in hand petitioner is claiming ITC on the basis of supplies made by Shree Radhey International in the year 2018. Admittedly only tax invoice was issued by the supplier. The alleged tax to have been charged was never deposited by the supplier and no compliance of Section 16(2)(c) was made. The eligibility and availment of ITC is subject to deposit of tax by supplier which is clear from the reading of sub-section (2)(c) - The provision is simple and clear and there is no ambiguity as regards actual payment of tax by supplier to Government. Once the supplier has not deposited the tax mandated under sub-section (2)(c) of Section 16 the petitioner purchaser cannot claim the benefit. In M/s Solvi Enterprises 2025 (3) TMI 1313 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT the co-ordinate Bench while dealing with Section 16 and 74 of the Act had not noticed the import of sub-section (2)(c) while granting the benefit of ITC on the ground that the registration of the seller dealer was cancelled on the subsequent date when the transaction had admittedly taken place - From the reading of the judgment it appears that provisions of subsection (2)(c) of Section 16 was not brought to the notice of the Court by State Counsel appearing in the matter. In the instant case notice under Section 74(1) was issued by taxing authorities after it was found that registration of the supplier Shree Radhey International was cancelled and no tax was deposited by him while ITC was claimed on the alleged transaction between the supplier and the purchaser. Reliance place upon the various judgments by petitioner s counsel does not help her case as no consideration of mandatory provision of Section 16(2)(c) of the Act has been considered. Moreover in many of the cases placed before the Court the matter has been remanded back to authorities for consideration afresh. In Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. 2023 (1) TMI 1479 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT the show-cause notice issued to petitioner therein was only stayed though challenge is to the vires of Section 16(2)(c) which still holds the field. No interference is required in the orders impugned - Petition dismissed.
The core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the entitlement to input tax credit (ITC) under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("U.P. GST Act") in respect of a transaction involving purchase of goods from a supplier whose registration was subsequently cancelled and who allegedly did not deposit the tax collected. Specifically, the issues include:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim ITC on purchases made from a supplier who was registered at the time of supply but whose registration was later cancelled and who did not deposit the tax to the government. 2. The applicability and interpretation of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("Central Act") and corresponding provisions under the U.P. GST Act regarding the condition that tax must have been actually paid to the government by the supplier for ITC to be claimed. 3. The evidentiary burden on the recipient of goods to prove the genuineness of the transaction, including actual physical movement of goods and payment of tax by the supplier. 4. The validity and scope of proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act for recovery of tax, interest, and penalty where ITC has been wrongly availed. 5. The relevance and impact of various judicial precedents, including judgments of coordinate benches and the Supreme Court, on the interpretation of ITC eligibility and procedural safeguards. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis Issue 1: Entitlement to ITC when supplier's registration is cancelled and tax not deposited The legal framework governing ITC entitlement is primarily found in Section 16 of the Central Act and corresponding provisions of the U.P. GST Act. Section 16(1) grants a registered person the right to claim ITC subject to prescribed conditions. However, Section 16(2) imposes restrictions, notably clause (c), which mandates that the tax charged in respect of the supply must have been actually paid to the government either in cash or through utilization of ITC. The Court noted that the transaction in question took place in 2018, when the supplier was registered. However, the supplier's registration was cancelled in 2019, and it was found that the supplier had not deposited the tax on the supplies made. The petitioner claimed ITC on the basis of tax invoices and payment through banking channels but failed to demonstrate that the tax was paid by the supplier to the government. The Court emphasized the plain language of Section 16(2)(c), which clearly restricts ITC entitlement to cases where the tax has been actually paid by the supplier. The provision was described as unambiguous and mandatory. Therefore, the petitioner's claim was not sustainable in the absence of proof of tax payment by the supplier. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 16(2)(c) and related provisions The Court extensively examined the statutory scheme, including the unamended provisions of Section 41 and Section 43A (prior to their amendment/omission by the Finance Act, 2022), which deal with the provisional acceptance and procedure for availing ITC. These provisions, read with Section 16(2)(c), collectively impose a framework that conditions ITC on the actual payment of tax by the supplier and verification of outward supplies. The Court observed that although the dispute relates to a 2018 transaction, understanding the post-amendment framework was helpful to appreciate the legislative intent to prevent fraudulent claims and ensure compliance. The amendments underscore the importance of matching ITC claims with actual tax payments by suppliers. Issue 3: Burden of proof on the recipient to establish genuineness and physical movement of goods The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in a case concerning the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which clarified that the burden of proving the correctness of an ITC claim lies squarely on the recipient claiming such credit. Mere production of tax invoices or payment proofs is insufficient. The recipient must prove beyond doubt the actual transaction, physical movement of goods, and payment particulars. The petitioner in this case failed to discharge this burden. There was no evidence of actual tax payment by the supplier, nor sufficient proof of physical movement of goods beyond the tax invoices and banking transactions. The Court found that the authorities rightly initiated proceedings under Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act for wrongful availing of ITC. Issue 4: Validity of proceedings under Section 74 for recovery of wrongly availed ITC Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act empowers authorities to determine tax not paid or input tax credit wrongly availed due to fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The Court noted that the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 74 was justified as the supplier's registration was cancelled and tax was not deposited, yet the petitioner claimed ITC. The Court explained that Section 74 proceedings are a mechanism to protect government revenue from fraudulent claims and ensure compliance with the statutory conditions for ITC. The petitioner's failure to produce evidence of tax payment by the supplier justified the demand for tax, interest, and penalty. Issue 5: Consideration of judicial precedents relied upon by parties The petitioner relied on several judgments from coordinate benches and other High Courts, including cases where ITC claims were allowed or matters remanded for fresh consideration. However, the Court observed that many of these judgments did not address or consider the mandatory condition under Section 16(2)(c) regarding actual tax payment by the supplier. In contrast, the Court found the decision in a coordinate bench case rejecting ITC claims where the burden of proof was not discharged, and the Supreme Court's ruling emphasizing the recipient's burden of proof, to be more authoritative and applicable. The Court distinguished the petitioner's cited judgments on these grounds. Application of Law to Facts and Treatment of Competing Arguments The petitioner argued that since the supplier was registered at the time of supply, and payment was made through banking channels with tax invoices issued, ITC should be allowed. The petitioner contended that the fault lay with the supplier's failure to deposit tax, which should not affect the recipient's claim. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the statutory scheme expressly conditions ITC entitlement on actual tax payment by the supplier. The petitioner's inability to prove tax payment or physical movement of goods meant the claim was not bona fide. The Court also noted that safeguards in the GST law are designed to prevent fraudulent claims and protect government revenue. The respondent and the authorities relied on the statutory provisions and the Supreme Court precedent to maintain that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof and that the initiation of proceedings under Section 74 was justified. Conclusions The Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to claim ITC on the disputed transaction because the supplier had not deposited the tax as required under Section 16(2)(c). The petitioner failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction, physical movement of goods, and tax payment by the supplier. The proceedings under Section 74 were rightly initiated and upheld. The Court dismissed the writ petition and discharged the interim order. Significant Holdings "The provision is simple and clear, and there is no ambiguity as regards actual payment of tax by supplier to Government. Once the supplier has not deposited the tax mandated under sub-section (2)(c) of Section 16, the petitioner purchaser cannot claim the benefit." "The burden of proving the correctness of ITC remains upon the dealer claiming such ITC. Such a burden of proof cannot get shifted on the revenue. Mere production of the invoices or the payment made by cheques is not enough and cannot be said to be discharging the burden of proof." "Section 74 is a mechanism where any input tax credit which has wrongly been availed can be taken back by Government along with interest and penalty." "The scheme under the Act has been provided to prevent fraudulent transactions and bogus claims of ITC. Safeguards have been put in place through various provisions to match transactions which have taken place between the parties before ITC is availed." Final determinations: - ITC claim is not permissible without proof of actual tax payment by the supplier as per Section 16(2)(c). - The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding genuineness and physical movement of goods. - Proceedings under Section 74 for recovery of wrongly availed ITC were valid and rightly upheld. - Reliance on judgments not considering Section 16(2)(c) is misplaced. - The writ petition is dismissed, and no interference with the orders of the authorities is warranted.
|
