M/S Malik Traders vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Ors. (State Taxes Department)

Held

The High Court held that it would be more appropriate for the appellate authority to re-examine the issue, as it involves the ascertainment of facts, rather than the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority within two weeks. The Appellate Authority is to reconsider the petitioner's claim for ITC and other benefits. This reconsideration will involve allowing the petitioner to file necessary documents and explain that the Principal Supplier had indeed uploaded the bills showing payment of GST. The Appellate Authority is required to issue a Speaking Order after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. The Court did not decide the merits of the ITC claim itself but remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Malik Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority had rejected the petitioner's appeal concerning Input Tax Credit (ITC) for a specific period. The rejection was based on the observation that the Principal Supplier had failed to upload the relevant bills, rendering the petitioner's ITC claim impermissible under the GST Act, 2017. The appellate authority also found that the petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence to justify the ITC claim. The petitioner contended that the Principal Supplier had uploaded the bills in GSTR, Form A in B2C, but these were not reflected on the State GST authorities' portal, leading to the appellate authority's adverse findings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the grounds that the Principal Supplier failed to upload the necessary bills, contrary to the petitioner's assertion that the bills were uploaded in GSTR, Form A in B2C but not reflected on the portal? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Principal Supplier did upload the bills in GSTR, Form A in B2C. They contended that the non-reflection of these uploaded bills on the State GST authorities' portal was the reason for the appellate authority's adverse observations. The petitioner sought a direction for the respondents to reconsider the matter after providing an opportunity to be heard. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents. However, the appellate authority's order, which is under challenge, was based on the non-upload of bills and lack of documentary evidence by the petitioner.