The Calcutta High Court stayed the demand order confirming the payment reversal of the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) due to the cancellation of the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) Registration of the supplier.
M/s. Asian Hotels (East) Ltd. & Anr, the petitioner/assessee has challenged the order passed under Section 73(9) of the West Bengal/Central GST Act, 2017.
The respondent department has passed the order raising a demand on petitioner no. 1 on account of the input tax credit ( ITC ) being availed by the assessee in violation of Section 16(2)(a) on the ground that M/s. Crystolyte Facility Management Pvt. Ltd., with whom the petitioner had signed an agreement, had closed down its business for the financial year 2018-19.
When the writ petition came up for consideration, the Court, by an order, permitted the petitioners to place a copy of the printout obtained from the GST portal showing the status of the return filed by M/s. Crystolyte Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. by way of a supplementary affidavit.
The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit in court and disclosed the printout from the portal of the GST authorities, which was last updated on June 19, 2024. The GST status of the said M/s. Crystolyte Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. is shown as suo motu cancelled with effect from April 6, 2021. It records that returns in GSTR 3B had been filed by the said M/s. Crystolyte Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. for the tax period 2018–19.
It was submitted that it has been clarified that there shall be no automatic reversal of input tax credit from the buyer on non-payment of tax by the seller. In case of default in payment of tax by the seller, recovery shall be made from the seller; however, reversal of credit from the buyer shall also be an option available with the revenue authorities to address exceptional situations like a missing dealer, the closure of business by a supplier, or the supplier not having adequate assets, etc.
The department contended that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal. The assessee has approached the high court without exhausting their alternative remedy.
A single bench of High Court Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury has observed that the prima facie case was made by the petitioner/assessee, and there shall be a stay of the demand raised by the proper officer as is reflected in the order, subject to the petitioners’ depositing 10% of the disputed tax amount with the GST authorities.
The Calcutta High Court stayed the demand on the condition that it deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount with the GST authorities. Ankit Kanodia appeared for the appellant and Anirban Ray appeared for the respondent.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
