2025 (6) TMI 1344 - HC - GST

Challenge to order passed u/s 107 of the WBGST /CGST Act 2017 and the demand raised by the respondents in From GST APL 04 - non-reversal of ITC - HELD THAT - The appellate authority having found that the petitioner had failed to afford appropriate reconciliation statement ought to have called upon the petitioner to produce such statements to arrive at a correct conclusion having regard to the scope of Section 107(12) of the said Act. Admittedly the appellate authority had concluded that the determination had been made by ignoring the procedure for determination of ITC in respect of inputs or inputs services and the reversal thereof as provided in Rule 42 and on the capital goods and reversal thereof as provided in Rule 43 of the said Rules and having regard thereto in ordinary course appropriate determination ought to have been made by the appellate authority by calling for documents from the petitioner. The same has not been done. Conclusion - Be that as it may since it prima facie appears that the petitioner was also at fault in supplying the reconciliation statements it would be prudent at this stage instead of remanding the matter back to the appellate authority to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for the adjudicating authority to decide the same in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Court revolve around the proper determination and reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, specifically:

• Whether the adjudicating authority correctly applied the provisions of Section 17(2) of the GST Act read with Rules 42 and 43 of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017, in determining the reversal of ITC.
• Whether the appellate authority properly conducted its review by ensuring adherence to the procedural and substantive requirements for ITC computation and reversal.
• Whether the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to submit reconciliation statements and other relevant documents necessary for correct adjudication.
• The correctness of the demand raised against the petitioner based on the alleged failure to reverse ITC appropriately.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Application of Section 17(2) of the GST Act and Rules 42 and 43 of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017

The legal framework governing the reversal of ITC is primarily Section 17(2) of the GST Act, which mandates reversal of credit in respect of inputs and input services used for exempt supplies or non-business purposes. Rules 42 and 43 prescribe the detailed methodology for computing the amount of ITC to be reversed, including formulas for inputs, input services, and capital goods.

The Court noted that the adjudicating authority concluded that the petitioner had failed to reverse ITC amounting to Rs. 55,11,115/-. However, this determination was made without applying the prescribed formulae under Rules 42 and 43, which are essential for a correct computation of ITC reversal. The appellate authority recognized this procedural lapse, emphasizing that the adjudicating authority should have considered the utilization of ITC and effective taxable supplies per the statutory provisions.

The Court underscored that adherence to these procedural steps is mandatory, as the reversal amount cannot be arbitrarily fixed without employing the formulae laid down in the Rules. This interpretation aligns with established principles that administrative authorities must follow statutory procedures strictly when dealing with tax computations.

2. Adequacy of Opportunity and Requirement of Reconciliation Statements

Another significant point was the petitioner's failure to furnish reconciliation statements for purchases and ITC availed during 2017-18. The appellate authority rejected the petitioner's appeal partly on this ground, holding that the petitioner did not provide adequate documentation to substantiate its claim.

The Court observed that, despite this failure, the appellate authority should have exercised its powers under Section 107(12) of the GST Act to call for the necessary reconciliation statements before arriving at a conclusive decision. Instead, the appellate authority proceeded without allowing the petitioner to rectify the deficiency or produce relevant documents, which was procedurally improper.

This approach was found inconsistent with principles of natural justice and fair procedure, which require that a taxpayer be given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and assist the authorities in determining the correct tax liability.

3. Treatment of Competing Arguments and Procedural Fairness

The petitioner contended that the authorities failed to follow the statutory procedure and formulae, while the respondents relied on the absence of reconciliation statements and the petitioner's alleged non-compliance. The Court balanced these competing contentions by emphasizing the procedural lapses on both sides: the petitioner's failure to submit reconciliation statements and the authorities' failure to seek such documents before finalizing the demand.

Rather than remanding the matter back to the appellate authority, the Court directed that the matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. This includes giving the petitioner an opportunity to file reconciliation statements and be heard, ensuring a fair and lawful determination of the ITC reversal issue.

4. Final Determination on the Validity of Demand and Orders

Given the procedural infirmities and the absence of a proper application of the statutory formulae, the Court set aside the orders passed by the adjudicating authority, the appellate authority, and the GST determination dated 3rd January 2024. The Court's decision effectively nullified the demand raised against the petitioner pending a fresh, lawful adjudication.

Significant Holdings

"The adjudicating authority had concluded that the determination had been made by ignoring the procedure for determination of ITC in respect of inputs or inputs services and the reversal thereof as provided in Rule 42 and on the capital goods and reversal thereof as provided in Rule 43 of the said Rules and having regard thereto, in ordinary course, appropriate determination ought to have been made by the appellate authority, by calling for documents from the petitioner. The same has not been done."

"The appellate authority having found that the petitioner had failed to afford appropriate reconciliation statement, ought to have called upon the petitioner to produce such statements to arrive at a correct conclusion, having regard to the scope of Section 107(12) of the said Act."

"It would be prudent at this stage instead of remanding the matter back to the appellate authority, to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for the adjudicating authority to decide the same in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."

The Court established the core principle that tax authorities must strictly follow the procedural and substantive requirements prescribed under the GST Act and Rules when determining ITC reversals. Further, taxpayers must be afforded a fair opportunity to present reconciliation statements and other relevant documents before adverse orders are passed. The failure to apply statutory formulae and to provide such opportunity vitiates the orders passed.

Accordingly, the Court's final determination was to set aside all impugned orders and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness and statutory mandates.