Case Law Details
Silver Castle Holidays And Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Superintendent (Kerala High Court)
Material Facts: The petitioner, a registered taxpayer under the CGST/SGST Acts, challenged an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The order denied input tax credit (ITC) for the period April 2018 to March 2019 on the ground that the returns were not furnished within the time prescribed under Section 16(4). The order also imposed liability for excess availment of ITC. The petitioner accepted the liability relating to excess ITC and disputed only the denial of ITC under Section 16(4).
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order to the extent it denied ITC under Section 16(4).
Legal Issues
Whether the denial of ITC under Section 16(4) could be sustained when the returns had been filed within the cut-off date contemplated under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
- Section 73 of the CGST Act.
- Section 16(4) of the CGST Act.
- Section 16(5) of the CGST Act.
Parties’ Submissions
The petitioner submitted that although it did not dispute the liability relating to excess availment of ITC, the denial of ITC under Section 16(4) was unsustainable in view of Section 16(5), which entitled taxpayers to claim ITC if the returns were furnished on or before 30.11.2021.
Court’s Findings and Reasoning
The Court noted that the show cause notice itself recorded that the petitioner had filed the relevant returns between 05.10.2018 and 23.04.2019. It found that these returns had been filed within the cut-off date contemplated under Section 16(5). Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief in relation to the denial of ITC.
Final Ruling
The Kerala High Court quashed the assessment order to the extent it denied input tax credit on the ground that the returns were not filed within the period stipulated under Section 16(4). The matter was remitted to the first respondent for reconsideration and for grant of ITC in the light of Section 16(5, if the petitioner was otherwise entitled.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is a registered taxpayer under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act. The grievance highlighted in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, in which the assessment was completed, mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner pertaining to the months from April 2018 to March 2019 were declined on the reason that the petitioner failed to submit the returns within the periods stipulated in Section 16(4).
2. Apart from the above, the some other liability was also imposed upon the petitioner on the reason that, the petitioner had availed excess input tax credit. According to the petitioner, as far as the liability towards excess availment of input tax credit is concerned, the petitioner is prepared to pay the said amount, as it is not disputing it. However, the contest of the petitioner is in relation to the denial of input tax credit on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit the returns within the time contemplated under Section 16(4). The challenge raised in this regard is by placing reliance upon Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, which provides that, in case the taxpayer is submitting the returns on or before 30.11.2021, such taxpayer would be entitled to claimed the input tax credit.
3. In this case, it is discernible from Ext.P2 show cause notice itself that, the petitioner had submitted the returns for the relevant months, between the period from 05.10.2018 to 23.04.2019. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner had submitted the returns within the cut off date contemplated under Section 16(5) of the Act and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P3, to the extent it declined the input tax credit on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit the returns within the period stipulated under Section 16(4) of the Act, with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter and grant the benefit of input tax credit in the light of Section 16(5) if the petitioner is otherwise entitled.
Author Bio
