Case Law Details
Med Serve Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court)
he petitioner, a registered taxpayer under the CGST/KSGST Act, challenged an order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act denying input tax credit (ITC) on two grounds. First, certain ITC claims were held to be unsupported by proper documents and therefore inadmissible under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act. Second, the monthly returns for December 2018, January 2019, February 2019, and March 2019 were found to have been filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) of the Act.
Before the Kerala High Court, the petitioner expressly stated that it was not pressing the challenge relating to denial of ITC under Section 16(2)(c). The challenge was confined to the denial of ITC on the ground that the returns had been filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 16(4).
The petitioner relied on Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, contending that taxpayers who furnished returns within the cut-off date of 30.11.2021 were entitled to claim ITC. The Court noted from the impugned order that the relevant monthly returns had been filed on 30.10.2019, 01.11.2019, 02.11.2019, and 22.11.2019, respectively. It found that all these returns had been submitted within the statutory period contemplated under Section 16(5).
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order to the extent it denied ITC on the ground that the returns were filed beyond the period under Section 16(4). The remaining findings in the order were not interfered with in view of the petitioner’s submission. The Court further directed the second respondent to reconsider the matter and grant the benefit of ITC under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, if the petitioner was otherwise entitled.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is a registered tax payer under the provisions of CGST/KSGST Act. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, by which, input tax credit claimed by the petitioner was declined for two reasons. Firstly, it was found that, certain credits claimed by petitioner were not supported by proper documents and therefore, it could not be availed by the petitioner in the light of the statutory stipulations contained in Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act. Apart from the above, it was also found that, the monthly returns for the months of December 2018, January 2019, February 2019 and March 2019 were submitted beyond the cut off date contemplated under Section 16(4) of the Act. As far as the challenge raised against Ext.P1, on the ground of denial of Input Tax Credit under Section 16(2)(c) CGST Act is concerned, it is specifically admitted by the petitioner in the writ petition that, they are not pressing the said relief. The relief sought by the petitioner is confined to the denial of Input Tax Credit on the ground that the returns were submitted beyond the statutory period contemplated under Section 16(4). This challenge is raised by the petitioner by placing reliance upon Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, which provides that, in case the tax payer furnishes the returns within the cut off date contemplated therein, which is 30.11.2021, such tax payer would be entitled to claim Input Tax Credit. In this case, it is discernible from Ext.P1 itself that, the petitioner had submitted the monthly returns for the months referred to above on 30.10.2019, 1.11.2019, 2.11.2019 and 22.11.2019 respectively. Thus, all the said returns were submitted within the statutory period contemplated under Section 16(5) of the Act and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief to that extent.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P1, to the extent it declined Input Tax Credit on the reason that, the petitioner had submitted the returns for the months of December 2018, January 2019, February 2019 and March 2019 beyond the statutory period contemplated under Section 16(4). The other findings in Ext.P1 are not interfered with, in view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as above. It is further directed that the 2nd respondent shall reconsider the matter and grant the benefit of Input Tax Credit to the petitioner under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled.
Author Bio
