Case Law Details
Muhammed Abdul Saini Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by Muhammed Abdul Saini against the judgment of a Single Judge that upheld Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act. The provision mandates that taxpayers claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) must ensure their suppliers have actually remitted output tax to the government. The appellant challenged this requirement but was unsuccessful, as a Division Bench had already affirmed the Single Judge’s ruling in a previous case (Nahasshukoor v. Assistant Commissioner II Circle, Alappuzha). The court reiterated that the statutory provision had received judicial approval, making the appeal unsustainable on that ground.
However, the court took note of the appellant’s claim that an error in Form GSTR-3B had not been raised before the Single Judge during the initial writ proceedings. The Single Judge had granted the petitioner liberty to claim benefits under two GST circulars (Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST and Circular No. 193/5/2023-GST) by submitting an application within a month. Given the appellant’s request, the Division Bench extended this time limit by another month, allowing him to approach the assessing authority with both the circular-based claims and the correction of errors in Form GSTR-3B. The court directed the assessing authority to consider these claims as per the earlier judgment. Except for this modification, the Single Judge’s ruling remained upheld, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
This Writ Appeal impugns the judgment dated 12.06.2024 of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.4495 of 2023. The Writ Petition itself was preferred inter alia challenging the provisions of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act to the extent it insisted that the assessee availing input tax credit had to ensure that the supplier of the inputs of the assessee had actually paid his output tax to the government. The learned Single Judge had rejected the challenge to the statutory provision in a batch of Writ Petitions, and a Division Bench comprised of one of us (Hon’ble Dr..Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar) had also affirmed the said judgment in Nahasshukoor v. Assistant Commissioner II Circle, Alappuzha and Others [2024 123 GSTR 44 (KER)]. Under the circumstances, we find that the principal issue decided by the learned Single Judge has received the approval of the Division Bench and the Writ Appeal to the extent it impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the said issue has necessarily to fail.
2. We take note however of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of filing the Writ Petition, the mistake occasioned by the assessee while entering figures in Form GSTR-3B could not be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, and was not therefore urged at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition. However, the learned Single Judge while disposing the Writ Petition has granted liberty to the petitioner to claim the benefit of two circulars namely, Circular No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and Circular No. 193/5/2023– GST dated 17.07.2023 by making that claim within one month from the date of the judgment before the appropriate authority. A direction has also been issued to the said authority to examine the claim of the appellant and process the claim. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that he may be given an opportunity to bring to the notice of the assessing authority the mistakes that were occasioned while claiming input tax credit so that the authority concerned can look into these aspects also along with the claims based on the circulars aforementioned.
We are inclined to accede to the prayers of the learned counsel for the appellant and accordingly, while dismissing the Writ Appeal in its challenge against the statutory provisions, we extend by one month from today, the time limit granted by the learned Single Judge to the appellant herein for claiming the benefit of the two circulars aforementioned as also for raising the additional issue projected by them with regard to the errors that crept into the Form GSTR-3B, before the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, if the appellant herein approaches the assessing authority concerned within a month from today pointing out the irregularities aforementioned, then the said assessing authority shall consider the application of the appellant as one that is preferred pursuant to the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge and proceed to adjudicate the same expeditiously. Save for this limited modification, the rest of the findings of the learned Single Judge are upheld and the Writ Appeal disposed accordingly.
Author Bio
