Case Law Details
Basanta Kumar Shaw Vs Assistant Commissioner of Revenue (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court held that provisions of rule 86A(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 nowhere indicates that the electronic credit ledger should contain sufficient balance for the purpose of blocking. Electronic credit ledger can be blocked even if there is NIL or insufficient balance.
Facts-
On account of mis-match between appellant’s input tax credit Form GSTR-2A from details of outward supplies furnished by the appellant’s supplier in their respective GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, the appellant was advised to furnish an explanation or pay the amount of tax as assessed in the show-cause notices along with applicable interest through online mode failing which demand order containing tax, interest and penalty will be issued under Section 73(a) of the WBGST / CGST Act, 2017.
On 30.03.2022 the appellant made a payment of Rs. 10 lakhs. To be noted that the appellant did not submit their reply to the show-cause notices within the time permitted. The first respondent by order dated 23.05.2022 in exercise of power under Rule 86A of the WBGST Rules disallowed the debit of IGST amounting to Rs. 2,67,96,042/- from the electronic credit ledger in terms of Clause (a)(ii) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 86A for the discharge of any liability under Section 49 of the WBGST/ CGST Act or the claim of any refund of any unutilized input tax credit.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
