Allahabad HC Addresses ITC Blockade in Amarnath Trading Company vs. State of U.P.

Amarnath Trading Company Vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)

In a recent case before the Allahabad High Court, Amarnath Trading Company took on the State of Uttar Pradesh, challenging an order that blocked Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs. 53,61,832. The contentious order, dated 10.10.2023, was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Special Investigation Branch), State Tax, Range-B, Ghaziabad, invoking Rule 86A of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Key Points of the Case:

1. Grounds of Challenge:

• The petitioner, represented by Shri Praveen Kumar, contested the order blocking ITC, emphasizing the issue of genuineness.
• The blockage was solely based on the satisfaction of the authority (respondent no.3) that the ITC related to a non-existent supplier/selling dealer, M/s Pushpendra Singh, at their disclosed place of business in District Hapur.

2. Reason for ITC Blockage:

• The primary reason for blocking ITC was the belief that M/s Pushpendra Singh did not exist at the registered place of business in Hapur.

3. Amended Registration Particulars:

• The court noted that M/s Pushpendra Singh had applied for an amendment in core registration details, including a change in the place of business from Hapur to Ghaziabad.
• The application for the change was submitted on 06.10.2023, just four days before the issuance of the impugned order.

4. Change of Address Confirmation:

• GSTN confirmed the change of address from Hapur to Ghaziabad on 31.10.2023, subsequent to the order blocking ITC.
• The court recognized that the delay in processing the application might have led to the authority’s unawareness of the change in address when passing the order on 10.10.2023.

5. Ex-Parte Order:

• Acknowledging the ex-parte nature of the order dated 10.10.2023, the court decided that keeping the petition pending or seeking a counter-affidavit would not serve a useful purpose at this stage.

6. Disposal of the Writ Petition:

• The court disposed of the writ petition with a direction for the petitioner to file an application before respondent no.3.
• The application seeks the recall of the order dated 10.10.2023, highlighting the change in M/s Pushpendra Singh’s address, and requests the authority to verify the correct facts from GSTN.
• Respondent no.3 is directed to pass an appropriate and reasoned order within one week from the date of filing the application.

Conclusion: The Allahabad High Court, recognizing the significance of accurate information and procedural fairness, provides the petitioner with an opportunity to rectify the situation by applying for the recall of the ex-parte order. The case highlights the importance of timely updates in registration particulars and the need for authorities to consider the most recent information before making decisions affecting taxpayers.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

1. Heard Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by respondent no.3/Assistant Commissioner (Special Investigation Branch), State Tax, Range-B, Ghaziabad whereby the said authority has blocked ITC of value Rs. 53,61,832/- in exercise of his power under Rule 86A of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

3. The only reason to block ITC is the satisfaction recorded by the respondent no.3 that the said ITC was not genuine since the supplier/selling dealer – M/s Pushpendra Singh was found to be non-existent at his disclosed place of business, at District Hapur.

4. Perusal of Annexure no.7 to the writ petition clearly indicates that the said M/s Pushpendra Singh had applied for amendment of core field in registration particulars, including as to the place of business – to be amended and changed from Hapur to Ghaziabad. That change was applied for on 06.10.2023 i.e. four days prior to the impugned communication. On 31.10.2023, GSTN recorded that change and issued due communication to M/s Pushpendra Singh to record the change of address of his principal place of business from Hapur to Ghaziabad. At present, it does appear, for reason of time consumed in processing the application dated 06.10.2023, that change of address of M/s Pushpendra Singh may not have been known to the respondent no.3 when he passed the order dated 10.10.2023.

5. In view of such facts, since the order dated 10.10.2023 is wholly ex-parte, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction, subject to the petitioner filing an application before respondent 3/Assistant Commissioner (Special Investigation Branch), State Tax, Range-B, Ghaziabad to recall the order dated 10.10.2023 for the facts and reasons noted above, the said respondent shall verify the correct facts from the GSTN and pass appropriate and reasoned order within a period of one week from the date of filing that application.