Citation:
Sri Shanmuga Hardwares Electricals Vs. State Tax Officer
W.P. Nos. Nos.3804, 3808 & 3813 of 2024
High Court of Madras
[2024] 159 taxmann.com 756 (Madras)
- Inadvertently, NIL GSTR-3B returns have been filed by the petitioner for FY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20.
- Petitioner submitted that Input Tax Credit has been reflected in GSTR-2A and the same has been declared in GSTR-9 filed for those periods and also that in each of the periods, the ITC has exceeded the Tax Liability. However, ITC claim was rejected solely on the ground that the same was not claimed in GSTR-3B returns.
- Department has argued that burden of proof to establish ITC eligibility is on the petitioner and since he has not discharged the same, interference of this court with the orders dated 30.09.2023 for the above assessment years is not called for. It has also stated that petitioner should not have approached this Court and should have availed the Statutory Remedy.
- Hon’ble High Court has held that:
- The assessing officer should examine the validity of ITC claim by examining all relevant documents, including calling the petitioner to provide such documents. However, since the claim was rejected solely on the ground that ITC was not claimed in GSTR-3B, interference is warranted with the present orders.
- The Impugned Orders are quashed and matters are remanded back for reconsideration. Petitioner has to submit all relevant documents for ITC claim, by two weeks, and the department has to pass an order within two months form the receipt of documents, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, to the petitioner.