Malamal Variamthody Manoj vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the assessment order (Ext.P1) should be set aside to the extent that it denied input tax credit (ITC) based on Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts. The Court's decision was influenced by its prior judgment in M. Trade Links V. Union of India (2024 KLT Online 1624). The Court directed that the petitioner's claim for ITC should be considered in terms of the directions issued in the M. Trade Links case. The competent respondent authority is to consider the directions from M. Trade Links, taking into account the factual situation of the present case, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. This reconsideration must be completed within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. Coercive proceedings related to the denied ITC are suspended until this decision is made. The ratio decidendi is that the principles laid down in M. Trade Links regarding the denial of ITC under Section 16(4) should be extended to the petitioner.
Facts
The petitioner, Malamal Variamthody Manoj, proprietor of Kairali Tradlink, is an assessee under the CGST/SGST Acts. He is aggrieved by Ext.P1, an order of assessment for the year 2018-19, wherein input tax credit (ITC) was denied to him. The denial of ITC was based on the provisions of Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala challenging this denial of ITC. The respondents are the Union of India, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Kozhikode Urban Division, and the Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise, Range V, Kozhikode.
Key Issues
1. Whether the denial of input tax credit (ITC) to the petitioner on account of the provisions contained in Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts is sustainable? The petitioner argued that the denial of ITC was erroneous and sought relief from the Court. The petitioner relied on the directions issued by the High Court in the case of M. Trade Links V. Union of India (2024 KLT Online 1624). The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel for Central Tax and Central Excise, presented its arguments. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's specific arguments beyond their appearance and representation.
Sections Cited
Section 16(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 27729 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: MALAMAL VARIAMTHODY MANOJ, AGED 53 YEARS PROPRIETOR, KAIRALI TRADELINK, RKP 2/II-D, AIRPORT ROAD, VAIDYARANGADI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673633 BY ADVS. R.JAIKRISHNA NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN C.S.ARUN SHANKAR ANISH P. RESPONDENT/S: 1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI G.P.O., PIN - 110001 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KOZHIKODE URBAN DIVISION, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 3 SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, RANGE V, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 SRI. V. GIRISH KUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 27729 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an assessee under the CGST/SGST Acts. He suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment for the year 2018-19. Petitioner has approached this Court, being aggr
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.