High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; impugned orders set asid...

Raju Joseph v. State Tax Officer, State Goods & Services Tax Department, Alappuzha; Assistant State Tax Officer, State Goods & Services Tax Department, Alappuzha North; Commissioner of State Goods & Services Tax Department; State of Kerala; Union of India

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.22478/2023
Neutral Citation:/nul

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Dinesh Kumar Singh
Judgment Date
2023-10-31
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned Exts. P5 and P5(a) are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Assessing Authority to reconsider the petitioner’s 2017-18 ITC claim irrespective of Form GSTR-2A, with the petitioner depositing 10% of the assessed amount within 15 days and appearing with documents by 30.11.2023 for fresh orders in accordance with law, the final decision to depend on the reassessment and circulars guiding ITC reconciliation.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; remitted to Assessing Authority for fresh consideration of ITC for 2017-18; 10% deposit required; appearance by petitioner for final orders; final decision subject to statutory and circular guidelines.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Raju Joseph

Respondents

  • State Tax Officer, State Goods & Services Tax Department, Mini Civil Station, Cherthala
  • Assistant State Tax Officer, Taxpayer Services Circle, State Goods & Service Tax Department, Alappuzha North, Mini Civil Station, Alappuzha
  • Commissioner of State Goods & Service Tax Department, Tax Tower, 9th Floor, Killippalam, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram
  • State of Kerala represented by Additional Chief Secretary (Taxes)
  • Union of India represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.N. Sreekumaran
  • • P. Anilkumar
  • • N. Santhoshkumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Thushara James
  • • K.R. Rajkumar
  • • Sreejith P. R

Case Synopsis & Summary

Raju Joseph, a registered dealer under the CGST and SGST Acts, challenges two GST orders (Exts. P5 and P5(a) dated 14.06.2023 and 16.06.2023) that denied his claim for input tax credit (ITC) for the financial year 2017-18 on the ground that the ITC claimed differed from the amounts in Form GSTR-2A. He contends that the discrepancy arose due to the supplier’s wrong GSTIN in Form GSTR-1 and that the clarifications in Circular No.183/15/2022-GST (27.12.2022) provide a procedure to reconcile ITC in such bona fide cases, including requirements for CA/CMA certificates or supplier certificates depending on the magnitude of the discrepancy. The petitioner relies on this court’s decision in Diya Agencies v. State of Kerala to argue that denial of ITC on the sole basis of 2A mismatch is unsustainable and that the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration. The court, after considering the circular and the materials, allows the writ petition, sets aside the impugned orders, and remits the matter to the Assessing Authority to reconsider the ITC claim for 2017-18 independent of Form GSTR-2A, with conditions including a 10% deposit and a date-certain for appearance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 226Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 16Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 17Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 18Proviso to Section 16(4) CGST Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the discrepancy between ITC claimed in Form GSTR-3B and that available in Form GSTR-2A, caused by the supplier’s wrong GSTIN in Form GSTR-1, falls within Circular No.183/15/2022-GST (27.12.2022). The circular provides an evidentiary framework (CA/CMA certificates for large discrepancies, supplier certificates for smaller ones) to verify ITC and clarifies that reconciliation is clarificatory and applicable to bona fide reporting in 2017-18 and 2018-19. Reliance is placed on Diya Agencies v. State of Kerala to urge remand for obtaining evidence and re-determining ITC if bona fide. The petitioner seeks to set aside Exts. P5 and P5(a) and obtain fresh adjudication by the Assessing Authority, arguing for a fair opportunity to prove the ITC claim independent of 2A reflection.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend the impugned orders, arguing that ITC claims not reflected in Form GSTR-2A cannot be allowed; the measures under Circular No.183/15/2022-GST are clarificatory but must be applied within statutory constraints. They emphasize adherence to sections 16-18 of the CGST Act and the proviso to section 16(4), contending that the assessment and denial were legally grounded. They maintain that rejection based on 2A mismatch is legitimate unless evidence (CA/CMA or supplier certificate) satisfactorily proves supplier tax payments. The respondents request dismissal of the writ or maintenance of the impugned orders while preserving rights under the statutory framework and circulars.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Diya Agencies v. State of Kerala[1]PositiveCited to support that denial of ITC merely for 2A mismatch is not sustainable and to justify remand for fresh evidence and re-evaluation of ITC in bona fide cases.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Raju Joseph v. State Tax Officer, State Goods & Services Tax Department, Alappuzha; Assistant State Tax Officer, State Goods & Services Tax Department, Alappuzha North; Commissioner of State Goods & Services Tax Department; State of Kerala; Union of India and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH TUESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 22478 OF 2023 ## PETITIONER/S: RAJU JOSEPH, AGED 49 YEARS PROP: FUTURE GRAPHIC SYSTEMS, TP 10/600, VARANAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688555 BY ADVS. K.N.SREEKUMARAN P.J.ANILKUMAR (A-1768) N.SANTHOSHKUMAR ## RESPONDENT/S: - 1 STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHERTHALA., PIN - 688522 - 2 ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, TAXPAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA NORTH, MINI CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 688013 - 3 COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA-P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002 - 4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (TAXES), - GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 **-2-** ## **W.P.(C) No.22478/2023** - 5 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 BY ADVS. THUSHARA JAMES K.R.RAJKUMAR SREEJITH P. R ## OTHER PRESENT: RESHMITA RAMACHANDRAN-GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **W.P.(C) No.22478/2023** **-3-** ## J U D G M E N T The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning Exts. P5 and P5(a) orders dated 14.06.2023 and 16.06.2023, respectively. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act as well as the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Act. On a perusal of the records in the writ petition, it appears that the only ground on which the petitioner has been said to have availed excess input tax credit is the difference between Form GSTR 2A and Form GSTR 3B for the tax period 2017-18. 3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Central Goods Indirect Tax and Customs considered the difficulties faced by the assessees in the initial year in respect of **W.P.(C) No.22478/2023** **-4-** difference in input tax availed in Form GSTR 3B as compared to that received in form GSTR 2A for the financial year 2017- 18 and 2018-19 and has issued clarification _vide_ Circular No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022, and it has been said that where the supplier has filed GSTR–1 as well as return in Form GSTR–3B for a tax period, but has declared the supply with the wrong GSTIN of the recipient in Form GSTR–1, the difference regarding the input tax credit claim by the recipient dealer in its Form GSTR–3B, but it is not reflected in Form GSTR–2A because of the wrong GSTIN of the recipient, the procedure has to be followed as amended in paragraph 4 of the Circular dated 27.12.2022. ## 3.1 Paragraph 4 of the said Circular reads as follows: “4. The proper officer shall first seek the details from the registered person regarding all the invoices on which ITC has been availed by the registered person in his FORM GSTR 3B but which are not reflecting in his FORM GSTR 2A. He shall then ascertain fulfilment of the following conditions of **W.P.(C) No.22478/2023** **-5-** Section 16 of CGST Act in respect of the input tax credit availed on such invoices by the said registered person: i) that he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by the supplier or such other tax paying documents; ii) that he has received the goods or services or both; iii) that he has made payment for the amount towards the value of supply, along with tax payable thereon, to the supplier. Besides, the proper officer shall also check whether any reversal of input tax credit is required to be made in accordance with section 17 or section 18 of CGST Act and also whether the said input tax credit has been availed within the time period specified under sub-section (4) of section 16 of CGST Act. 4.1 In order to verify the condition of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of CGST Act that tax on the said supply has been paid by the supplier, the following action may be taken by the proper officer: 4.1.1 In case, where difference between the ITC claimed in FORM GSTR-3B and that available in FORM GSTR 2A of the registered person in respect of a supplier for the said financial year exceeds Rs 5 lakh, the proper officer shall ask the registered person to produce a certificate for the concerned supplier from the Chartered Accountant (CA) or the Cost Accountant (CMA), certifying that supplies in respect of the **W.P.(C) No.22478/2023** **-6-** said invoices of supplier have actually been made by the supplier to the said registered person and the tax on such supplies has been paid by the said supplier in his return in FORM GSTR 3B. Certificate issued by CA or CMA shall contain UDIN. UDIN of the certificate issued by CAs can be verified from ICAI website https://udin.icai.org/search-udin and that issued by CMAs can be verified from ICMAI website https://eicmai.in/udin/VerifyUDIN.aspx . 4.1.2 In cases, where difference between the ITC claimed in FORM GSTR-3B and that available in FORM GSTR 2A of the registered person in respect of a supplier for the said financial year is upto Rs 5 lakh, the proper officer shall ask the claimant to produce a certificate from the concerned supplier to the effect that said supplies have actually been made by him to the said registered person and the tax on said supplies has been paid by the said supplier in his return in FORM GSTR 3B. 4.2 However, it may be noted that for the period FY 2017-18, as per proviso to section 16(4) of CGST Act, the aforesaid relaxations shall not be applicable to the claim of ITC made in the FORM GSTR-3B return filed after the due date of furnishing return for the month of September, 2018 till the due date of furnishing return for March, 2019, if supplier had not furnished details of the said supply in his FORM GSTR-1 till **-7-** ## **W.P.(C) No.22478/2023** the due date of furnishing FORM GSTR 1 for the month of March, 2019.” 3.2 Paragraph 5 of the Circular also clarifies that the errors Circular would be applicable in respect of _bona fide_ committed in reporting during financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and the guidelines issued for reconciliation of the input tax credit claimed in Form GSTR -3B and Form GSTR – 2 and as reflected in Form GSTR – 2A are clarificatory in nature and may be applied to the facts and circumstances of each case. 3.3 Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of _Diya Agencies v. State of Kerala_ _**[1]**_ wherein paragraph 8 of the Judgment reads as under: “8. In view thereof, I find that the impugned Exhibit P-1 > 1 Judgment dated 12.09.2023 in W.P.(C) No.29769/2023 **W.P.(C) No.22478/2023** **-8-** assessment order so far denial of the input tax credit to the petitioner is not sustainable, and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to give opportunity to the petitioner for his claim for input tax credit. If on examination of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, the assessing officer is satisfied that the claim is bonafide and genuine, the petitioner should be given input tax credit. Merely on the ground that in Form GSTR-2A the said tax is not reflected should not be a sufficient ground to deny the assessee the claim of the input tax credit. The assessing authority is therefore, directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to give evidence in respect of his claim for input tax credit. The petitioner is directed to appear before the assessing authority within fifteen days with all evidence in his possession to prove his claim for higher claim of input tax credit. After examination of the evidence placed by the petitioner/assessee, the assessing authority will pass a fresh order in accordance with law.” 4. Considering these facts and taking into consideration Circular No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned Exts. P5 and P5(a) orders dated 14.06.2023 and 16.06.2023 are set aside. **-9-** ## **W.P.(C) No.22478/2023** The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner irrespective of the Form GSTR 2A for the petitioner’s claim of the input tax credit. However, the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the amount assessed within a period of fifteen days and appear before the Assessing Authority with all the documents and evidence in his possession for passing fresh orders in accordance with the law. 4.1 If, on consideration of the evidence and materials and also the Circular, the Assessing Authority is of the opinion that the petitioner's claim for input tax credit for the financial year 2017-18 is not justified, the petitioner shall be liable to remit the remaining amount. The 10% of the amount assessed paid by the petitioner shall be subject to the final decision of the Assessing Authority. The petitioner shall appear before the **W.P.(C) No.22478/2023** **-10-** Assessing Authority on **30.11.2023** at 11.00 a.m., complying with all the directions as above. The writ petition stands allowed. Sd/DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE jjj **W.P.(C) No.22478/2023** **-11-** ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22478/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS - Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN FORM NO.GST ASMT 10 DATED 23..8..2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - Exhibit-P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.GST ASMT 11 DATED 19..9..2020 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT - Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ALONG WITH FORM GST DRC-01 DATED 2..9..2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY IN DRC 06 (AS PART B OF THE NOTICE) DATED 25..9..2021 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.1/2023/ALPYNORTH CIRCLE DATED 14..6..2023 IN FORM GST DRC 07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit-P5(a) TRUE COPY OF SUMMARY ORDER UNDER REFERENCE NO.ZD320623011506V DATED 16..06..2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT - Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11..11..2022 IN W.P.(C) 32054/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT