Case Law Details
Vijay Impex Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
In the case of Vijay Impex Vs State Tax Officer, the Madras High Court reviewed a challenge to an order dated April 22, 2024, which reversed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner had claimed ITC for supplies from M/s. Panjali Colours and submitted relevant documents in response to a show cause notice issued in November 2023. They relied on Circular No. 183 dated December 27, 2022, which allows for submission of a supplier’s certificate to validate ITC claims when discrepancies between Forms GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A are under Rs. 5,00,000. Despite these submissions, the order was upheld as the supplier failed to file returns and pay taxes. The court found that the petitioner’s documents, including the supplier’s certificate, were considered, and no principles of natural justice were violated. The petitioner was advised to pursue statutory remedies as the case was disposed of without costs, and the associated miscellaneous petition was closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order dated 22.04.2024 reversing the Input Tax Credit availed by the petitioner is challenged in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner asserts that eligible Input Tax Credit was availed in respect of supplies made by M/s.Panjali Colours. Upon receipt of show cause notice dated 11.2023, the petitioner submitted replies dated 21.12.2023 and 31.01.2024. The impugned order came to be issued in these facts and circumstances on 22.04.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted all relevant documents in relation to purchases made from M/s. Panjali By referring to Circular No.183 dated 27.12.2022, learned counsel contends that the tax payer is entitled to submit a certificate from the supplier to justify the availment of Input Tax Credit whenever the difference between Input Tax Credit availed in Form GSTR-3B and that reflected in Form GSTR-2A is less than Rs.5,00,000/-. By placing reliance on the certificate and on an earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court, learned counsel contends that the impugned order is unsustainable.
4. Mr C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. By referring to the impugned order, learned Additional Government Pleader submits that Input Tax Credit was denied to the petitioner in respect of purchases from M/s. Panjali Colours because the supplier did not file returns and pay taxes.
5. On perusal of the impugned order dated 22.04.2024, it is evident that the petitioner’s reply and documents annexed thereto, including the certificate from the supplier, were taken into consideration. In effect, it cannot be said that there was violation of principles of natural justice.
6. In the impugned order, reasons are set out for rejecting the supplier’s certificate produced by the petitioner. In this factual context, this is not an appropriate case for exercising discretionary jurisdiction. The impugned order is dated 22.04.2024 and the petitioner is within the period of limitation prescribed by statute.
7. Therefore, WP.No.12226 of 2024 is disposed of by leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Author Bio
