Sahil Enterprises vs. Union of India & Ors.
Facts:
The petitioner purchased rubber products from a supplier and paid GST amounting to ₹1,11,60,830 to the supplier during July 2017 to January 2019. Investigation revealed that the supplier filed GSTR-1 showing sales but did not deposit the GST with the Government while filing GSTR-3B returns. The department issued a show cause notice under Section 73 alleging wrongful availment of ITC and confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty.
Court Decision:
The High Court held that Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act requires that ITC can be availed only when tax charged on the supply has actually been paid to the Government. However, the Court observed that a purchasing dealer has no mechanism to verify whether the supplier has deposited the tax with the Government and cannot control the supplier’s compliance.
The Court held that denial of ITC to a bona fide purchaser who has paid tax to the supplier would impose an impossible and disproportionate burden and would defeat the objective of ITC, which is to avoid double taxation. Accordingly, the Court held that Section 16(2)(c) is constitutionally valid but must be read down so that ITC cannot be denied in bona fide transactions where the purchaser has paid GST to the supplier and there is no fraud or collusion.
Since the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated under Section 73 and there was no allegation of fraud or collusion, the transaction was held to be bona fide. The impugned order dated 17.05.2022 denying ITC was set aside and the respondents were directed to allow ITC of ₹1,11,60,830 to the petitioner.
Cases Referred by Court:
- B.R. Enterprises vs. State of U.P.
- CST vs. Radhakrishan
- On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi
- Commissioner of Trade and Tax, Delhi vs. Arise India Ltd.
- Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner Trade and Tax, Delhi
- Commissioner of Trade and Tax, Delhi vs. Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd.
- National Plasto Moulding vs. State of Assam
- McLeod Russel India Ltd. vs. Union of India
- Laxmipat Singhania vs. CIT
- Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. CIT
- Jain Brothers vs. Union of India
Other Case Law
Sahulhameed v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Tuticorin-II
Validity of service of GST notices/orders through portal under Section 169 and compliance with principles of natural justice
Facts :The petitioner challenged assessment orders on the ground that notices an...
Read MoreSouth Indian Oil Corporation vs. The Assistant Commissioner,
Refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017 – inverted duty structure where input and output goods are same. Eligibility of refund despite same tax rate on principal input and output; applicability of GST Circula
Facts:The petitioner, engaged in procurement and sale of edible oils, purchased ...
Read MoreKlassic Traders vs. State of Karnataka & Others
Quashing of ECL blocking order under Rule 86A of CGST Rules, 2017 passed without pre-decisional hearing and without independent 'reasons to believe', based solely on borrowed satisfaction from Enforcement authority reports
BackgroundThe petitioner, Klassic Traders, a proprietary concern registered unde...
Read More