Case Law Details
Bosch Automotive Electronics India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court)
In the case of Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court addressed a dispute over the denial of input tax credit (ITC) claims by the petitioner. Bosch challenged a Show Cause Notice demanding reversal of ITC, interest, and penalties for the delayed claim of ITC on manpower supply services between 2017-2023. The dispute arose because the tax authority claimed Bosch’s ITC was beyond the stipulated period under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. Bosch argued that a subsequent CBIC circular (No. 211/5/2024-GST, dated 26th June 2024) clarified that the ITC was claimed within time. The court noted the circular supported Bosch’s stance and directed the tax authorities to reconsider the objections to the Show Cause Notice in light of the circular. Bosch was granted three weeks to submit its objections, and the authorities were instructed to proceed as per law. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
In this petition, petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:
“a) issue a writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice bearing No. ADCOM(ENF)/SZ/DCC T-02/INS-49/2022-23 dated 02.08.2023 issued by the Respondent No.2 in FORM GST DRC-01 enclosed at Annexure-A demanding input tax credit availed by the Petitioner along with interest and penalty;
b) hold that the Petitioner has rightly availed input tax credit of Rs.3,92,52,317/- in respect of the manpower supply services received by the Petitioner during the period 2017-18 to 2022-23;
c) pass such further order(s) and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned Show Cause Notice issued under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Acts read with IGST Acts, 2017 in order to point out that respondent No.2 has come to the erroneous conclusion that the petitioner was not eligible to claim IGST Input Tax Credit (for short ‘ITC’) for the period July 2017 to March 2023 on the ground that there was a delay in taking credit beyond the stipulated period as contemplated under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. In this context, it is pointed out that the said position was clarified by the CBIC in its subsequent circular No.211 /5/2024-GST, dated 26.06.2024 wherein it is clarified that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in availment of ITC particularly, when the self invoices had already been issued by 31.05.2023. It is therefore submitted that in the light of the subsequent circular issued by CBIC, the impugned Show Cause Notice deserves to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned AGA fairly submits that the said position regarding availment of ITC on the ground of belated claim has been clarified by the aforesaid circular, which is binding upon the respondents. It is however, submitted that the present petition is premature and if the petitioner files his reply to the Show Cause Notice and brings to the notice of respondent No.2, respondent No.2 may be directed to consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.
5. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is relevant to extract the aforesaid circular issued by the CBIC, which reads as under:
“2.5 It can be seen that section 16(4) of CGST Act links the time limit for ITC availment with the financial year to which the invoice or debit note pertains. As discussed in Para 2.3 above, in case of supplies where the supplier is unregistered and recipient is registered and the tax has to be paid by the recipient on RCM basis, the recipient is required to issue invoice in terms of the provisions of section 31 (3) (f) of CGST Act and pay the tax on the same in cash under RCM. Further, as discussed in Para 2.1 above, ITC cannot be availed by a registered person in respect of any supply of goods or services or both received by him, as per the provisions of section 16 (2) (a) of CGST Act, unless he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note or such other tax paying documents as may be prescribed.
2.6 A combined reading of the above provisions leads to a conclusion that as ITC can be availed by the recipient only on the basis of invoice or debit note or other duty paying document, and as in case of RCM supplies received by the recipient from unregistered supplier, invoice has to be issued by the recipient himself, the relevant financial year, to which invoice pertains, for the purpose of time limit for availment of ITC under section 16(4) of CGST Act in such cases shall be the financial year of issuance of such invoice only. In cases, where the recipient issues the said invoice after the time of supply of the said supply and pays tax accordingly, he will be required to pay interest on such delayed payment of tax.
2.7 Accordingly, it is clarified that in cases of supplies received from unregistered suppliers, where tax has to be paid by the recipient under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) and where invoice is to be issued by the recipient of the supplies in accordance with section 31 (3) (f) of CGST Act, the relevant financial year for calculation of time limit for availment of input tax credit under the provisions of section 16(4) of CGST Act will be the financial year in which the invoice has been issued by the recipient under section 31(3)(f) of CGST Act, subject to payment of tax on the said supply by the recipient and fulfilment of other conditions and restrictions of section 16 and 17 of CGST Act. In case, the recipient issues the invoice after the time of supply of the said supply and pays tax accordingly, he will be required to pay interest on such delayed payment of tax. Further, in cases of such delayed issuance of invoice by the recipient, he may also be liable to penal action under the provisions of Section 122 of CGST Act.”
6. As can be seen from paragraph Nos.2.5, 2.6 and 2.7, the deprived of the same or fastened with liability to pay interest on account of his claim having been filed belatedly as can be seen from the circular. The aforesaid circular completely supports the claim of the petitioner especially in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the K.P.VARGHESE Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, AIR 1981 SC 1922 to the effect that a CBIC circular is binding upon the respondents. However, since the said circular was issued during the pendency of the present petition and the respondents did not have the benefit of the said circular at the time of issuance of the Show Cause Notice, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition and direct respondent No.2 to consider the objections to be filed by the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law, bearing in mind the aforesaid circular and take appropriate decisions/pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file his objections to the impugned Show Cause Notice within a period of three weeks, which shall be considered by respondent No.2, who shall proceed further bearing in mind the observations made in this order and circular No.211/5/2024-GST, dated 26.06.2024.
7. Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.
