Pr. Commissioner CGST & CX Vs Agarwala’s Bitumex Private Limited (GSTAT)
ITC Cannot Be Denied Merely for Absence of Toll Plaza Records or Default at Second-Level Supplier-Kolkata GSTAT
Summary: The Kolkata Bench of GSTAT dismissed Revenue’s appeals concerning refund claims of accumulated ITC under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 by M/s Agarwala’s Bitumex Private Limited. The refund claims had initially been rejected by the original adjudicating authority, but the first Appellate Authority allowed them. Revenue disputed, among other things, the absence of toll plaza movement in West Bengal for consignments and the cancellation of GST registrations of two second-level suppliers from whom the respondent’s immediate supplier, M/s KS Metals Pvt. Ltd., had procured goods. The respondent contended that GST law does not prescribe toll plaza movement or receipts as a condition for ITC and relied on the “Bill To Ship To” model and supporting E-way Bills, bilty copies, shipping bills, EGM details, transporter’s certificate and bank statements. The Bench noted that payment of duty was reflected in GSTR-1, GSTR-2B and GSTR-3B, the refund application had been verified, and the export of goods was not disputed. It held that there was no provision requiring goods to necessarily start from the registered place of the supplier and found that the supporting transportation and export documents had not been disputed. Referring to Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, the Bench found the respondent compliant with its conditions and held that toll plaza receipts were not mandatory for availing ITC. On the second-level suppliers, the Bench noted that the respondent’s actual supplier, M/s KS Metals, had valid registration and that there was no connection between the respondent and the second-level suppliers. The Bench also declined to consider additional grounds raised by Revenue for the first time before GSTAT, referring to Rule 45(1) of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 and Rule 112(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Accordingly, appeals bearing Nos. APL/14/KLK/2026 and APL/10/KLK/2026 filed by Revenue were dismissed.
