Amit Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the Assessing Officer was bound to follow the procedure prescribed in Para 4 of the referred Circular dated 27.12.2022, especially since the petitioner's case fell under Clause 3(a) of the Circular, which deals with situations where the supplier has filed GSTR-3B but not GSTR-1, causing supplies not to reflect in the recipient's GSTR-2A. The Court also noted the petitioner's contention regarding claiming credit from integrated tax under Section 49(5) of the BGST Act. However, the Court explicitly stated that it made no observations on the merits of the petitioner's claim as per the Circular or Section 49(5). The assessment order was set aside solely for the purpose of redoing the assessment in accordance with the provisions of law and the aforementioned Circular, which the Assessing Officer must consider. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Kumar, a proprietary concern, is challenging an assessment order for the year 2018-19, passed by the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax, Danapur 1, Patna. The assessment order, dated 06.04.2024, found a deficiency in both Central and State tax amounting to Rs. 2,75,124.10/-. This deficiency arose because the petitioner's claim for input tax credit (ITC) was not reflected in the supplier's GSTR-2A returns, despite the petitioner having paid the tax to the supplier. The petitioner contends that this discrepancy occurred due to the supplier's failure to upload invoices, a situation addressed by a CBIC circular for the initial years of GST implementation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the petitioner's claim for input tax credit solely based on the non-reflection of invoices in the supplier's GSTR-2A, without considering the provisions of Circular F No.CBIC-20001/2/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and Section 49(5) of the BGST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the discrepancy in ITC arose because the supplier failed to upload invoices in their GSTR-1, leading to non-reflection in the petitioner's GSTR-2A. They relied on Circular F No.CBIC-20001/2/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022, which provides a procedure for handling such discrepancies for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19, given the nascent stage of GST. The petitioner also pointed out that their entitlement to claim credit from integrated tax reflected in GSTR-2A, which exceeded the demand, and referenced Section 49(5) of the BGST Act. Revenue's Arguments: No specific arguments from the revenue were recorded in the judgment.