Siva Automotive Trading Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Siva Automative Trading Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 28.12.2023 for the tax period 2017-18. The petitioner, an assessee under the GST Act, had sought to carry forward Input Tax Credit (ITC) of VAT and entry tax through GST TRAN-I. The respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), issued a show cause notice on 29.09.2023 disallowing this ITC. The petitioner claims to have submitted a reply on 06.09.2021 with supporting documents, including VAT and entry tax returns for January-June 2017. However, the assessment order stated that no documents were produced as per Section 140(1) of the State Goods and Services Tax Act. The respondent conceded that the documents submitted by the petitioner might not have been placed before the Assessing Officer.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner claimed certain materials placed during the inquiry were not considered by the Assessing Officer, and the respondent conceded this point. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent on 04.04.2024 with the required materials. The respondent was directed to consider these materials and pass a suitable order on its merits and in accordance with law, after providing the petitioner with due opportunity of hearing, within two weeks thereafter. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order passed without considering the evidence submitted by the assessee is unsustainable and warrants a remand for fresh adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 28.12.2023, which disallowed the carry forward of ITC based on GST TRAN-I, is valid when the petitioner claims to have submitted supporting documents for VAT and entry tax for the period January-June 2017, as per Section 140(1) of the State Goods and Services Tax Act read with Rule 117(1) of the State Goods and Services Tax Rules. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had submitted all necessary documents, including VAT and entry tax returns for the period January-June 2017, along with their reply on 06.09.2021, and that these materials were not considered by the Assessing Officer before passing the impugned order. Respondent's contention: The respondent submitted that the documents enclosed by the petitioner in the typed set of papers were not placed before the Assessing Officer at the time of passing the impugned order. They further submitted that if the said documents are furnished, the same will be considered afresh.