Ezhupunna South Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Summary: The petitioner challenged an order under Section 73 of the CGST Act concerning 2019–2020. The order denied input tax credit for October 2019 to March 2020 because the petitioner had filed the relevant returns beyond the time stipulated under Section 16(4). The petitioner relied on Section 16(5), which it submitted allowed the credit where the returns were filed by 30 November 2021. The Court noted from Ext.P1 GST ASMT-10 that the returns had been submitted on 14 January 2021, 15 January 2021 and 29 September 2021, all before that cutoff. On the separate issue under Section 16(2)(c), the petitioner submitted that it might be able to furnish suppliers’ declarations to substantiate the transactions and tax remittance. The High Court quashed Ext.P4 and directed the assessing authority to reconsider the matter and grant input tax credit under Section 16(5) if the petitioner was otherwise entitled to it. The petitioner was permitted to submit any declarations concerning Section 16(2)(c) within one month of receiving the judgment. The authority was directed to complete the proceedings within four months after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is a registered tax payer under the provisions of SCGST/KSGST Act. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is against Ext.P4, the order passed under Sec.73 of CGST Act, in respect of the assessment year 2019-2020. As per Ext.P4, the assessment was completed mainly on two grounds. One is for non-compliance of Sec.2(c) of the Act and the other is the denial of input tax credit claimed by the petitioner for the year 2019- 2020 on the reason that, the petitioner failed to submit the return for the months of October 2019 to March 2020 within in the period stipulated under Sec.16(4) of the CGST Act.
The main challenge raised by the petitioner is by placing reliance upon Sec.16(5) of the Act, wherein, it is contemplated that, if the taxpayer is submitting the returns within the cutoff date contemplated under the said provision, i.e. on 30.11.2021, such taxpayer would be entitled to get the input tax credit. In this case, all the returns were submitted by the petitioner before the said period and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the said benefits. On perusal of Ext.P1 GST ASMT-10, it is discernible that, the petitioner had submitted the returns for the months from October 2019 to March 2020 on 14.01.2021, 15.01.2021 and 29.09.2021. Thus, all the returns are seen submitted before the cutoff date, contemplated under Sec.16(5) of the Act and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of input credit.
As regards Sec.16(2) (c) of the Act, the submission of the petitioner is that, it may be possible for the petitioner to furnish the declarations of the suppliers, to substantiate the transactions and the tax remittance.
In such circumstances this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P4, with a direction to the assessing authority to reconsider the matter and to grant the petitioner the input tax credit, on the strength of Sec.16(5) of the CGST Act, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to the same. With regard to Sec.16(2)(c), it is clarified that, it shall be open to the petitioner to submit declarations, if any, to substantiate the same, within the period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Entire proceedings shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is a registered tax payer under the provisions of SCGST/KSGST Act. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is against Ext.P4, the order passed under Sec.73 of CGST Act, in respect of the assessment year 2019-2020. As per Ext.P4, the assessment was completed mainly on two grounds. One is for non-compliance of Sec.2(c) of the Act and the other is the denial of input tax credit claimed by the petitioner for the year 2019- 2020 on the reason that, the petitioner failed to submit the return for the months of October 2019 to March 2020 within in the period stipulated under Sec.16(4) of the CGST Act.
The main challenge raised by the petitioner is by placing reliance upon Sec.16(5) of the Act, wherein, it is contemplated that, if the taxpayer is submitting the returns within the cutoff date contemplated under the said provision, i.e. on 30.11.2021, such taxpayer would be entitled to get the input tax credit. In this case, all the returns were submitted by the petitioner before the said period and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the said benefits. On perusal of Ext.P1 GST ASMT-10, it is discernible that, the petitioner had submitted the returns for the months from October 2019 to March 2020 on 14.01.2021, 15.01.2021 and 29.09.2021. Thus, all the returns are seen submitted before the cutoff date, contemplated under Sec.16(5) of the Act and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of input credit.
As regards Sec.16(2) (c) of the Act, the submission of the petitioner is that, it may be possible for the petitioner to furnish the declarations of the suppliers, to substantiate the transactions and the tax remittance.
In such circumstances this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P4, with a direction to the assessing authority to reconsider the matter and to grant the petitioner the input tax credit, on the strength of Sec.16(5) of the CGST Act, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to the same. With regard to Sec.16(2)(c), it is clarified that, it shall be open to the petitioner to submit declarations, if any, to substantiate the same, within the period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Entire proceedings shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
