Ms National Automobiles Through Its Proprietor Ashok Kumar Bhatia vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Pr Secretary Cum Commissioner Commercial Taxes Deptt

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the writ petition is covered by a previous judgment of the same Court dated 11.11.2024 in W.P.(T) No. 5916 of 2024. Consequently, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes on 12.08.2021, which imposed penalty and interest on the petitioner, was set aside. This decision was based on Clause (5) of Section 16 of the CGST Act, which was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, and made effective retrospectively from 01.07.2017. The Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to take Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the delayed returns filed for the Financial Year 2017-18. Furthermore, any interest and penalty levied and collected from the petitioner were to be refunded with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of collection until the date of repayment. The Court expressly did not leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s National Automobiles, through its proprietor Ashok Kumar Bhatia, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Palamu Circle. This order imposed penalty and interest on the petitioner. The tax period in question pertains to the Financial Year 2017-18. The petitioner sought to take Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of delayed returns filed for this period. The respondents are the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, and various State Tax authorities in Palamu Circle.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of delayed returns filed for the Financial Year 2017-18, considering the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law, specifically in light of the insertion of Clause (5) of Section 16 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017? The petitioner argued that they should be allowed to take ITC for delayed returns, relying on the aforementioned legislative amendment. The respondents' arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but their action of imposing penalty and interest suggests they were of the view that ITC was not permissible under the prevailing rules at the time of filing the delayed returns.