Premier M Plex Vs Assistant Commissioner (Kerala High Court)
Summary: The petitioner, Premier M Plex, a registered taxpayer under the CGST/KSGST Act, challenged Ext.P3 order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act insofar as input tax credit was denied for the periods December 2018 to March 2019, November 2019 to March 2020 and April 2020 to March 2021 on the ground that the returns were not filed within the time contemplated under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. The petitioner did not contest the other findings in Ext.P3 and confined the challenge to the denial of input tax credit under Section 16(4), relying on Section 16(5) of the CGST Act.
The Court noted that Section 16(5) contemplates entitlement to input tax credit where the relevant returns are furnished up to 30.11.2021. From Ext.P3 and the returns produced as Ext.P1, the Court found that the returns for December 2018 to March 2019 were submitted on 18.12.2019, 23.12.2019 and 02.01.2020. The returns for November 2019 to March 2020 were furnished on 29.11.2021, and the returns for April 2020 to March 2021 were also furnished on 29.11.2021. The Court therefore found that all the relevant returns had been submitted within the cut-off date contemplated under Section 16(5).
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by quashing Ext.P3 to the extent that it declined the input tax credit by invoking Section 16(4). The assessing officer was directed to reconsider the matter and grant the benefit of input tax credit in the light of Section 16(5), if the petitioner was otherwise entitled. The Court also dealt with the reported freezing of the petitioner’s bank account as part of recovery. It directed that the freeze be lifted consequent to the quashing of the assessment order, provided the petitioner had remitted the amount demanded in Ext.P3, except the amount imposed as tax and penalty for violating Section 16(4).
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is a registered tax payer under the provisions of the CGST/KSGST Act. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, by which the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner for the period from December 2018 to March 2019, November 2019 to March 2020 and April 2020 to March 2021 were not filed within date stipulated under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. Apart from the above, some other grounds are also raised in Ext.P3 order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of input tax credit, under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act and as regards the other findings, the petitioner is not intending to contest. The challenge against the denial of input tax credit relying upon Section 16(4) of the CGST Act is raised, by placing reliance upon Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, which provides that, in cases where, the tax payer is
furnishing the returns within cut off date contemplated therein, which is 30.11.2021, such tax payer would be entitled to input tax credit. In this case, it is discernible from the Ext.P3 order and the returns produced as Ext.P1 that, the petitioner submitted the returns for the period from December 2018 to March 2019 on 18.12.2019, 23.12.2019 and 02.01.2020. Similarly with regard to the year 2019-20, the petitioner furnished the returns for the month of November 2019 to March 2020 on 29.11.2021 and in respect of the assessment year 2020-21, the petitioner submitted returns for the months of April 2020 to March 2021 on 29.11.2021. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner had submitted all the returns within the cut off date contemplated under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act and therefore, they are entitled to get the benefits.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P3, to the extent it declined the input tax credit by invoking Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, with a direction to the assessing officer to reconsider the matter, and to grant the benefit of input tax credit in the light of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled. As it is reported that, as part of recovery of the amounts the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen, it ordered that, the same shall be lifted, consequent to the quashing of assessment order, in case the petitioner has remitted the amount in respect of the amount demanded in Ext.P3, except the amount imposed as tax and penalty for violating Section 16(4) of the CGST.
