Maisur Projects PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the assessment order and the appellate order were passed without adhering to the procedure prescribed by Circular F. No. CBIC-20001/2/2022-GST dated December 27, 2022. The Court noted that the petitioner's contention was that the discrepancy in ITC arose due to the supplier's GSTR-2A not reflecting the full tax payment. The circular, particularly Clause 3(a) and the reference to Para 4, provides a mechanism to handle such situations where the supplier fails to upload GSTR-1 but files GSTR-3B. The Court found that the Assessing Officer was obligated to follow this procedure. Since the supplier has now uploaded the GSTR-3B returns, which reflects the entire ITC claimed, the Court set aside the assessment order to allow for a fresh assessment in accordance with the circular. The appellate order was also set aside. The writ petition was allowed.

Facts

The petitioner, Maisur Projects Pvt. Ltd., is challenging an assessment order for the year 2018-19, passed by the Assessing Officer on August 25, 2023. The petitioner's claim for input tax credit (ITC) was disallowed because it did not match their GSTR-3B returns when verified against the supplier's GSTR-2A returns. The disputed amount is Rs. 10,43,2024/-. The petitioner's appeal against this order was rejected on January 19, 2023. The petitioner contends that the discrepancy arose because the supplier's GSTR-2A did not reflect the entire tax paid by the petitioner to the supplier, which should be eligible for ITC.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner for the tax period 2018-19, contrary to the provisions of the GST Act and relevant circulars? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that the discrepancy in ITC arose solely because the supplier's GSTR-2A did not reflect the full tax payment made by the petitioner. They rely on Circular F. No. CBIC-20001/2/2022-GST dated December 27, 2022, which provides a procedure for cases where suppliers fail to upload invoices in GSTR-1 but have filed GSTR-3B, causing the supplies not to reflect in the recipient's GSTR-2A. Specifically, they refer to Clause 3(a) of the circular, which mandates following the procedure in Para 4. The petitioner also submits that the supplier has since uploaded Form GSTR-3B, reflecting all the ITC claimed by the petitioner. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.