Muhammed Abdul Saini Vs State Tax Officer
Date: November 5, 2024
Court: High Court
Bench: Kerala
Type: Writ Appeal
Subject Matter
AO to consider correction of errors in Form GSTR-3B
Summary
The Writ Appeal contested a judgment from a Single Judge that upheld the validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act. This provision mandates that taxpayers can only claim input tax credit if the supplier has remitted the corresponding output tax to the government. The Single Judge's decision was affirmed by a Division Bench in a prior case, making the appeal without merit. - The appellant, Muhammed Abdul Saini, pointed out that an error regarding Form GSTR-3B was not addressed in the initial proceedings. The Single Judge had allowed him to seek benefits under two specific GST circulars by applying within a month. The Division Bench agreed to extend this application period by another month, permitting the appellant to file for both the circular-related claims and the corrections concerning Form GSTR-3B errors. The court instructed the assessing authority to consider all claims in light of the prior judgment. The overall findings of the Single Judge were upheld, with the appeal being disposed of accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
This Writ Appeal impugns the judgment dated 12.06.2024 of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.4495 of 2023. The Writ Petition itself was preferred inter alia challenging the provisions of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act to the extent it insisted that the assessee availing input tax credit had to ensure that the supplier of the inputs of the assessee had actually paid his output tax to the government. The learned Single Judge had rejected the challenge to the statutory provision in a batch of Writ Petitions, and a Division Bench comprised of one of us (Hon’ble Dr..Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar) had also affirmed the said judgment in Nahasshukoor v. Assistant Commissioner II Circle, Alappuzha and Others [2024 123 GSTR 44 (KER)]. Under the circumstances, we find that the principal issue decided by the learned Single Judge has received the approval of the Division Bench and the Writ Appeal to the extent it impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the said issue has necessarily to fail.
2. We take note however of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of filing the Writ Petition, the mistake occasioned by the assessee while entering figures in Form GSTR-3B could not be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, and was not therefore urged at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition. However, the learned Single Judge while disposing the Writ Petition has granted liberty to the petitioner to claim the benefit of two circulars namely, Circular No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and Circular No. 193/5/2023– GST dated 17.07.2023 by making that claim within one month from the date of the judgment before the appropriate authority. A direction has also been issued to the said authority to examine the claim of the appellant and process the claim. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that he may be given an opportunity to bring to the notice of the assessing authority the mistakes that were occasioned while claiming input tax credit so that the authority concerned can look into these aspects also along with the claims based on the circulars aforementioned.
We are inclined to accede to the prayers of the learned counsel for the appellant and accordingly, while dismissing the Writ Appeal in its challenge against the statutory provisions, we extend by one month from today, the time limit granted by the learned Single Judge to the appellant herein for claiming the benefit of the two circulars aforementioned as also for raising the additional issue projected by them with regard to the errors that crept into the Form GSTR-3B, before the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, if the appellant herein approaches the assessing authority concerned within a month from today pointing out the irregularities aforementioned, then the said assessing authority shall consider the application of the appellant as one that is preferred pursuant to the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge and proceed to adjudicate the same expeditiously. Save for this limited modification, the rest of the findings of the learned Single Judge are upheld and the Writ Appeal disposed accordingly.