Tvl.P.S.Gunasekaran vs. The State Tax Officer

Original PDF →
WP(MD)/12443/2024HC MadrasGSTCNR HCMD01052946202420 August 2024Bench: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ7 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner challenged assessment orders disallowing Input Tax Credit (ITC) for periods 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. The denial was based on the premise that payments to suppliers were not made within 180 days of invoice, as required by Section 16(2)(d) of the GST Act.

Held

The Court held that the assessment orders were passed without proper application of mind and in violation of natural justice. The petitioner had submitted documents showing payments were made within 180 days, but these were rejected without proper notice or re-verification.

Key Issues

Whether the Input Tax Credit was wrongly denied for non-payment to suppliers within 180 days, and if the assessment order violated principles of natural justice by disregarding submitted evidence.

Sections Cited

Section 16(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: and

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(MD)No.12443 of 2024
W.P.(MD)No.12444 of 2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the assessment orders dated 19.02.2024, for the period 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, on the premise that the denial of the Input Tax Credit, on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the details to show that the payments made to their suppliers, is contrary to the material on record. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)Nos.12443 and 12444 of 2024

2.

The petitioner was engaged in supply of general goods including grocery, ever-silver and household articles. During the period 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, the petitioner had effected purchases from various dealers and filed his return. While so, the petitioner was issued with the show cause notices DRC-01A, wherein, it was proposed to reverse the Input Tax Credit relating to the amounts shown under the head 'Sundry Creditors' by invoking Section 16(2)(d) of the GST Act on the premise that the Sundry Creditors has not been paid the value of supplies within a period of 180 days from the date of issue of invoices, as a result of which the Input Tax Credit was sought to be disallowed. The petitioner submitted his reply vide DRC 01A Part-B inter alia enclosing the customer-wise ledger details showing that the Sundry Creditors had been paid within 180 days from the date of invoice and as such, there was no outstanding payment to any of the suppliers beyond the period of 180 days from the date of raising of the invoices.

3.

By referring to Page Nos.35 to 103 of the additional typed set of papers, it was submitted that the Bank statements or ledger wise details etc., were submitted before the learned adjudicating authority which would disclose 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)Nos.12443 and 12444 of 2024 that the suppliers were in fact paid within a period of 180 days from the date of raising of the invoice and thus, there is no occasion to invoke Section 16 (2)(d) of the Act.

4.

It was submitted that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind to the material on record by affirming its proposal by merely stating that the petitioner had not submitted the details of date of payment with relevant documents. It was submitted that a close perusal of the documents submitted would disclose the date of payment and it also reveals that the suppliers had been paid before the expiry of 180 days from the date of raising of the invoice.

5.

The impugned order thus suffers from violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not put on notice of the need to submit the date of payment. There is some merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as voluminous documents have been filed. However, the same has been rejected by the respondent herein by merely stating that the details relating to the date of payments are not available. If the respondent had any doubt as to the date of payment being beyond the period of 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)Nos.12443 and 12444 of 2024 180 days, the petitioner ought to have been put on notice of the same. As a matter of fact, the date of payment is also available in the documents submitted by the petitioner. At this juncture, when the same was pointed out to the learned Additional Government Pleader, he submitted that the exercise would be re-done.

6.

In view thereof, the impugned orders in GSTIN: 33AAOFP6250H1Z4/2019-2020/(April 2019 to March 2020) Dated 19.02.2024 and GSTIN: 33AAOFP6250H1Z4/2020-2021/(April 2020 to March 2021) Dated 19.02.2024, are set aside. The petitioner shall submit a detailed statement including the date of invoices and date of payment made and the mode of payment, before the respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the impugned orders would stand revived. On such reply being filed, the respondent/authority shall re-do the assessment, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)Nos.12443 and 12444 of 2024

7.

With the above direction, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 20.08.2024 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr To: The State Tax Officer, Munichalai Road Circle, Madurai – 20. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)Nos.12443 and 12444 of 2024 MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. Nsr W.P.(MD)Nos.12443 and 12444 of 2024 20.08.2024 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.