Suchismita Maji Vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court, in the case of Suchismita Maji vs. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX, ruled that an appellate authority has the power to accept additional evidence during a Goods and Services Tax (GST) appeal, even if the conditions outlined in Rule 112(1) of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017 are not explicitly met. This decision addresses a crucial point regarding procedural fairness in GST litigation.
The case originated from a writ petition filed by Suchismita Maji, a registered taxpayer and a distributor of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) cylinders. Maji had availed input tax credit for her business transactions with another entity, referred to as respondent no. 6. A clerical error occurred where respondent no. 6 failed to correctly record Maji’s GST registration number on the invoices. This resulted in the transactions not being reflected in the petitioner’s GSTR 2A, a form used for tax credit reconciliation.
Following this issue, a show cause notice was issued to Maji on December 28, 2023, for the tax period of April 2018 to March 2019. This led to an order being passed under Section 73 of the GST Act on April 19, 2024. Aggrieved by this decision, Maji filed an appeal. During the appellate process, she attempted to introduce a certificate from respondent no. 6, dated August 10, 2024, to prove the business transactions and the invoicing error.
