Buyer Not Responsible For Non Payment of GST by Seller

Sanchita Kundu Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Calcutta High Court)

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the action of the respondent GST concerned denying the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by their impugned order dated 27^th December, 2021 to the petitioner on purchase of the goods in question from the suppliers and asking the petitioners to pay the penalty and interest under the relevant provisions of GST Act, on the ground that the registration of the suppliers in question has already been cancelled with retrospective effect covering the transaction period in question. Petitioner has also challenged the impugned orders dated 29t^h March, 2022 and 30t^h March, 2022 respectively being Annexure P-10 to the writ petition, under Section 79(1)(c) of the WBGST Act.

The main contention of the petitioners in these writ petitions are that the transactions in question are genuine and valid by relying upon all the supporting relevant documents required under law and contend that petitioners with their due diligence have verified the genuineness and identity of the suppliers in question and more particularly the names of those suppliers as registered taxable person were available at the Government portal showing their registrations as valid and existing at the time of transactions in question and petitioners submit that they have limitation on their part in ascertaining the validity and genuineness of the suppliers in question and they have done whatever possible in this regard and more so, when the names of the suppliers as a registered taxable person were already available with the Government record and in Government portal at the relevant period of transaction, petitioners could not be faulted if the suppliers appeared to be fake later on. Petitioners further submit that they have paid the amount of purchases in question as well as tax on the same not in cash and all transactions were through banks and petitioners are helpless if at some point of time after the transactions were over, if the respondents concerned finds on enquiries that the aforesaid suppliers (RTP) were fake and bogus and on this basis petitioners could not be penalised unless the department/ respondents establish with concrete materials that the transactions in question were the outcome of any collusion between the petitioners/purchasers and the suppliers in question. Petitioners further submit that all the purchasers in question invoices-wise were available on the GST portal in form GSTR-2A which are matters of record.

Considering the facts as recorded, without any further verification it cannot be said that that there was any failure on the part of the petitioners in compliance of any obligation required under the statute before entering into the transactions in question and that there was no verification of the genuineness of the suppliers in question by the petitioner during the relevant period.

Petitioners in support of their contention have relied on unreported judgment of this Court dated 13t^h December, 2021 in a similar case in the case of M/s. LGW Industries Limited & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P.A No.23512 of 2019.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.