Abbott Healthcare PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court set aside the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Shimla. The Court noted that the respondents had not placed any material on record to rebut the petitioner's plea regarding the Audit Report. Consequently, the Court directed the Additional Commissioner to decide the matter afresh. This fresh adjudication must take into consideration the submissions made and the material placed on record by both the petitioner and the Revenue Department. The Court explicitly stated that it had not adjudicated any issue on merit, including the merits of the show cause notice or the objections raised by the petitioner. The concerned authority was instructed to adjudicate the matter without being influenced by the Court's order or any observations made. The needful was to be done within two months.

Facts

The petitioner, Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Shimla. The core of the dispute concerned the alleged wrong availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs.17,67,81,453/- by the petitioner on invoices issued by an Input Service Distributor (ISD) during the periods 2018-19 and 2019-20. The adjudicating authority had held this ITC to be recoverable from the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner placed before the Court an Audit Report under Section 65(6) of the CGST Act, which reportedly gave a clean chit to the petitioner regarding the disputed ITC amount. The respondents sought time to seek instructions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Audit Report under Section 65(6) of the CGST Act, which reportedly provides a clean chit to the petitioner regarding the disputed ITC, has a bearing on the recoverability of the ITC amount of Rs.17,67,81,453/- from the petitioner? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on the interpretation and impact of the Audit Report under Section 65(6) of the CGST Act). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the Audit Report under Section 65(6) of the CGST Act, which purportedly absolved them of the wrong availment of ITC, should be considered. They relied on the Audit Report to rebut the findings of the adjudicating authority. Respondents' contentions: The respondents (Union of India & Ors.) initially prayed for and were granted time to seek instructions, indicating they needed to respond to the petitioner's submission regarding the Audit Report. No further arguments were recorded for the respondents in the provided text.