Back
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, PARTHA SARTHY
Aastha Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The issue raised in the above writ petition is as to the sustainable claim of Input Tax Credit, when it has been proved that the purchaser, a registered dealer has satisfied the tax liability to the selling dealer, another registered dealer, evidenced by a tax invoice; even when the selling dealer does not pay the said tax to the Government after collecting it from the purchaser. Whether the purchasing dealer can be denied Input Tax Credit evidenced by the invoice and is not the State obliged to take proceedings against the selling dealer, who defaulted payment of collected tax to the State; for which the statute provides ample scope, is the question raised.
2. The question unfortunately is raised against an assessment order on which there is a statutory appeal provided. The assessment order is dated 24/25.05.2022 and as per Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity “BGST Act”) an appeal has to be filed within three months and with sufficient cause shown for the delay occasioned, within a further period of one month. It is trite that an appeal would not lie after the specific period provided for delay condonation. Hence,
The claim of Input Tax Credit cannot be sustained when the selling dealer has not paid the tax to the Government despite collecting it from the purchasing dealer.
Dealers claiming input tax credit must establish genuine transactions and physical movement of goods with adequate proof; failure to do so may result in disallowance and recovery proceedings under th....
Input tax credit can be claimed by purchasing dealers under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, even if selling dealers fail to remit tax, provided purchasing dealers meet statutory requirements.
Purchasing dealers claiming ITC must prove genuine transactions and actual physical movement beyond invoices or payment details under Section 70 of KVAT Act, 2003.
Input tax credit claims require proof of actual tax payment by the supplier; failure to demonstrate this results in denial of credit.
The first respondent was not justified in reversing the ITC availed by the appellant without conducting any enquiry on the supplier and without resorting to any action against the supplier.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
