Availment of lower ITC than Amount reflected in Auto-Populated GSTR 2A Return amounts to Non-Application of Mind: Madras HC [Read Order]
Madras HC rules that availment of lower ITC than amount reflected in auto-populated GSTR 2A Return amounts to non-application of mind
![Availment of lower ITC than Amount reflected in Auto-Populated GSTR 2A Return amounts to Non-Application of Mind: Madras HC [Read Order] Availment of lower ITC than Amount reflected in Auto-Populated GSTR 2A Return amounts to Non-Application of Mind: Madras HC [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Availment-lower-ITC-Amount-reflected-Auto-Populated-GSTR-2A-Return-Non-Application-of-Mind-Madras-HC-taxscan.jpg)
A Single Bench of the Madras High Court observed that the availment of lower input tax credit ( ITC ) than amount reflected in auto-populated GSTR 2A Return amounts to non-application of mind.
The petitioner is engaged in the business of supply of bricks, blocks, tiles and ceramic goods. The petitioner asserts that he is uneducated and computer illiterate. Therefore, it is further asserted that the petitioner was unaware of proceedings commencing from the issuance of an intimation and culminating in the impugned assessment order.
The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner had claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs.54,000/- each for SGST and CGST in the GSTR 3B return, whereas the auto-populated GSTR 2A return reflected the availability of ITC to the extent of Rs.3,23,967/- each towards SGST and CGST. In those circumstances, she submits that the conclusion that the petitioner wrongly availed of eligible ITC is patently wrong and indicates complete non-application of mind.
The Government Advocate pointed out that both the intimation and show cause notice were served on the petitioner by post and not merely uploaded on the GST portal. Therefore, he submitted that principles of natural justice were clearly complied with.
The Court of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that “On perusal of the impugned assessment order, it is evident that the petitioner availed of a lower amount as ITC than the amount reflected in the auto-populated GSTR 2A return. In those circumstances, the conclusion that the petitioner wrongly availed of ITC indicates non application of mind. As regards the interest liability for belated filing of returns, the evidence on record reflects that the petitioner remitted sums of Rs.3,97,353/- each towards CGST and SGST on 06.03.2024. In these circumstances, the impugned order calls for interference.”
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates