Muhammed Abdul Saini v. State Tax Officer & Others
Background
The writ petition had challenged Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act to the extent that it required an assessee claiming ITC to ensure that the supplier of the inputs had actually paid the output tax to the Government. The learned Single Judge had rejected the challenge to the statutory provision in a batch of writ petitions. The Division Bench had earlier affirmed that decision in Nahasshukoor v. Assistant Commissioner II Circle, Alappuzha and Others.
The appellant also submitted that certain mistakes made while entering figures in Form GSTR-3B could not be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge when the writ petition was heard. The Single Judge had, however, granted liberty to claim the benefit of two CBIC circulars before the appropriate authority and directed the authority to examine and process the claim. The appellant sought an opportunity to place the GSTR-3B errors also before the assessing authority along with the claims under the circulars.
Court Observation
The Court held that the principal challenge to Section 16(2)(c) had already received approval from a Division Bench in Nahasshukoor. Consequently, the challenge to the statutory provision was bound to fail.
However, the Court accepted the appellant’s request regarding the mistakes in Form GSTR-3B. It considered it appropriate to extend the time granted by the Single Judge by one month so that the appellant could claim the benefit of the two specified circulars and also raise the issue concerning errors in Form GSTR-3B before the adjudicating authority.
Final Verdict
The writ appeal was dismissed insofar as it challenged the statutory provisions, and the findings of the learned Single Judge were otherwise upheld.
The Court extended by one month from 6 November 2024 the time for approaching the assessing authority to claim the benefit of Circular Nos. 183/15/2022-GST and 193/5/2023-GST and to raise the issue of errors in Form GSTR-3B. The assessing authority was directed to consider and adjudicate the matter expeditiously. The writ appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Cases Referred by Court
Nahasshukoor v. Assistant Commissioner II Circle, Alappuzha and Others — High Court of Kerala — 2024.
Other Case Law
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.
Whether proviso to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act (levy of surcharge on block assessment) is retrospective or prospective
Facts :A search and seizure operation was conducted on the assessee, followed by...
Read MoreImpressive Data Services Private Limited vs Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Tax GST, Delhi
Appeal – Mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 – whether High Court can waive statutory pre-deposit for filing appeal.
Facts:The petitioner challenged the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 107...
Read MorePEI Industries & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Whether a writ petition is maintainable challenging an Order in Original passed by Central GST Authorities under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017, when State GST Authorities had already closed proceedings on the same set of documents under Section 73, and whe
BACKGROUNDThe Petitioners challenged an Order in Original dated 30th March, 2026...
Read More