Case Law Details
Arafa Plywood And Veneers Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
In a recent ruling Hon’ble Kerala HC disposed off the writ petition by remanded back the matter to competent authority in the light of the circulars passsed by GST counsel mentioned at para 101 of the judgment M. Trade Links Vs. Union of India.
The petitioner has been denied input tax credit in terms of the provisions contained in Section 16(2)(c) of CGST/SGST Acts. Petitiner relied upon the circular Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and Circular No. 193/05/2023- GST dated 17.07.2023 wherein 53rd GST Council Meeting has recommended to extend the time limit for availing ITC pertaining to FY 2017-18 to FY 2020-21 to November 30, 2021 retrospectively w.e.f. July 1, 2017.
It is the case of the petitioner that if the petitioner is given the benefit of the Circulars referred to in paragraph No.101 of the judgment of this Court in M. Trade Links v. Union of India [2024 KLT OnLine 1624], the petitioner will be entitled to input tax credit, which has now been denied to it.
It was argued on behalf of the department that orders in dispute were passed on 24-04-2024 and the petitioner did not file this writ petition within the period available for filing an appeal. It is submitted that a belated challenge has now been raised to orders, and such challenge should not be entertained.
Finally Kerela HC dispoded the writ petition by giving on opportunity to the petitioner to prove its claim in terms of circular above mentioned in the light of the direction passed by Kerela HC in M.Trade Links (supra).
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner has been denied input tax credit in terms of the provisions contained in Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/State Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017 (CGST/SGST Acts). It is the case of the petitioner that if the petitioner is given the benefit of the Circulars referred to in paragraph No.101 of the judgment of this Court in M.Trade Links v. Union of India [2024 KLT OnLine 1624] , the petitioner will be entitled to input tax credit, which has now been denied to it by Exts.P2 and P3 orders.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that Exts.P2 and P3 orders were passed on 24-04-2024 and the petitioner did not even file this writ petition within the period available for filing an appeal. It is submitted that a belated challenge has now been raised to Exts.P2 and P3, and such challenge should not be entertained.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and the learned Government Pleader and having regard to the directions issued by this Court in Trade Links (supra), I am of the view that one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to prove its claim in terms of the Circulars referred to in paragraph No.101 of the judgment of this Court in M. Trade Links (Supra) before the competent authority.
Accordingly, this writ petition will stand allowed by setting aside Exts.P2 and P3 orders to the extent it denies input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Acts and directing that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered in terms of the Cir-culars referred to in paragraph No.101 of the judgment of this Court in M. Trade Links (Supra) after affording an opportunity of hearing to an authorised representative of the petitioner. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim and it will be open to the competent authority to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law.
Author Bio
