Thirumalakonda Plywoods Vs Assistant Commissioner (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Constitutionality of time limit for claiming ITC under section 16(4) of the CGST Act is not ultra virus
The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Thirumalakonda Plywoods v. The Assistant Commissioner [W.P.No.24235 of 2022 dated July 18, 2023] held that, mere acceptance of GSTR-3B returns with late fee will not exonerate the delay in claiming Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) beyond the period specified under section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”).
Facts:
Thirumalakonda Plywoods (“the Petitioner”) is a proprietor engaged in the business of hardware and plywood since March 2020 with the trade mark of ‘Thirumalakonda Plywoods’.
The Petitioner received an e-mail dated December 16, 2021 whereby the Petitioner submitted the reply through e-mail on January 17, 2022, stating that input was availed for March, 2020.
The Petitioner sought an opportunity under section 74(5) of the CGST Act, to avail ITC since the Petitioner had already discharged the late fee for delay in filing the return and the same was challenged through the reply on e-mail with his detailed submissions.
A Show Cause Notice was issued by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) on February 22, 2022 (“the SCN”) and an opportunity of personal hearing dated March 02, 2022 was given to the Petitioner. In compliance to the SCN the Petitioner filed a reply stating that the SCN is not in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act and Rules, 2017. The Respondent did not consider the reply submitted by the Petitioner and passed an order (“the Impugned Order”) vide order no. ZH370322OD48625, dated March 14, 2022 holding that the Petitioner made an irregular claim of ITC of an amount of INR 4,78,626 with INR 11,24,994 towards tax, penalty and interest.
Further, the Respondent contended in the Impugned order that the reply filed by the Petitioner was not in accordance to the GST Act and Rules, 2017 thereby it is false to contend that the reply filed by the Petitioner was not considered before passing the Impugned order, therefore no provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India have been infringed.
Aggrieved with the Impugned order the Petitioner filed writ before the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Issues:
