Case Law Details
Ibrahim Kutty Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
The petitioner, a registered taxpayer under the CGST Act, challenged an order passed by the State Tax Officer denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) for March 2020 and imposing penalty on the ground that the return for the relevant month was not filed within the period prescribed under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. The petitioner relied on Section 16(5) of the Act, which provides that taxpayers who furnish returns before the cut-off date of 30.11.2021 would be eligible for ITC. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed the return on 18.01.2021, which was before the cut-off date specified under Section 16(5). In view of this, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by quashing Ext.P6 and directing the first respondent to reconsider the matter and grant Input Tax Credit to the petitioner, if otherwise eligible.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is a registered tax payer under the provisions of the CGST Act. The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P5 order passed by the 1″ respondent, by which, Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner for the period of March, 2020 was declined and penalty was imposed on account of the same, on the reason that the petitioner failed to submit return for the said month, within the period stipulated under Section 16(4) of the Act. Challenge is raised by the petitioner mainly relying on Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, wherein, it is provided that, in case tax payer is furnishing the return within the cut off date as contemplated therein, i.e., 30.11.2021, such tax payer would be entitled to get the Input Tax Credit. In this case, it is discernible that the petitioner submitted the return on 18.01.2021, which is before the cut off date contemplated under Section 16(5) of the Act. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs.
Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P6 with a direction to the 1″ respondent to reconsider the matter and grant the petitioner Input Tax Credit, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to.
Author Bio
