Pushpa Devi Jain Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The petitioner challenged an order passed under Section 73(9) read with Rule 142(5) of the WBGST Act, 2017 by the Assistant Commissioner, SGST Siliguri Charge, seeking recovery of excess CGST and SGST amounting to ₹73,099.55 each, along with interest and penalty. While the principal tax amount had already been recovered, interest and penalty remained outstanding. The petitioner contended that the tax component on supplies was duly paid to the supplier, as reflected in tax invoices and bank statements, and therefore her statutory obligation stood discharged. She argued that once payment was made to the supplier, she became entitled to Input Tax Credit (ITC), and any failure of the supplier to deposit the tax with authorities could not justify proceedings against her.
The Court noted that the supplier had not declared the supply in returns and its registration had been cancelled, and the revenue could not locate the supplier. However, it held that these factors alone were insufficient to proceed against the purchaser. The Court observed that recovery from a purchaser requires factual satisfaction regarding fake or forged invoices, non-transfer of tax to the supplier, collusion to evade tax, unsuccessful recovery proceedings against a non-operational supplier, or lack of bona fides on the part of the purchaser. Mere inability to trace the supplier cannot shift the burden to a bona fide purchaser.
Comments are closed.