Failure to Consider ITC Claimed in GSTR‑9 and Written Representation: Calcutta HC Sets Aside Order and Remands [Read Order]
Relying on precedent, the Bench noted that particulars furnished in GSTR‑9 cannot be ignored, as doing so would render the annual return redundant. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with liberty to the petitioner to submit clarifications.
The Calcutta High Court, in a recent case, has set aside an appellate order under Section 107 of the CentralGoods and Services Tax (WBGST/CGST) Act, 2017, finding that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the petitioner’s written representation and her claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the annual return (GSTR‑9).
The petitioner, Laxmi Ghosh, challenged an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The appeal had arisen from an adjudication order under Section 73 of the Act, which demanded CGST and SGST for the financial year 2018–19.
The dispute stemmed from the petitioner’s failure to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) of IGST for May, June, and July 2018 in her monthly GSTR‑3B returns. Upon realising the omission, she claimed the ITC in her annual return (GSTR‑9) for FY 2018–19. She argued that the IGST credit of ₹3,54,457.99 should be offset against the demand, leaving only a differential liability of ₹83,608.07 plus interest.
A show cause notice under Section 73 was issued, demanding CGST of ₹2,19,033.03 and SGST of ₹2,19,033.03 along with interest. In response, the petitioner explained that the omission was inadvertent and rectified in GSTR‑9. She submitted that the ITC claim was valid and supported by records, and therefore, the demand should be reduced accordingly.
The adjudicating authority rejected her plea, and the Appellate Authority subsequently dismissed her appeal. The appellate order stated that the petitioner’s plea was “devoid of logic, facts & proper explanation” and that “necessary documents” were absent. However, it did not specify which documents were missing, nor did it address the written representation filed by the petitioner.
Justice Om Narayan Rai noted that the Appellate Authority’s order suffered from non‑application of mind. The Court observed that the petitioner had indeed filed a written representation, annexed to the writ petition, contradicting the appellate finding that no representation was made.
Further, the Court pointed that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the effect of ITC claimed in GSTR‑9. Relying on the Division Bench ruling in Pioneer Co‑operative Car Parking Servicing and Constructions Society Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (2025) , the Court reiterated that particulars furnished in GSTR‑9 must be given due weight. Ignoring them would defeat the purpose of filing an annual return under Section 44(1) read with Rule 80 of the GST Rules.
The Court held that the appellate order was unsustainable as it neither explained why the petitioner’s plea was illogical nor identified the missing documents. The failure to consider the written representation and GSTR‑9 claim vitiated the order.
On these grounds, the High Court set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit further representations or clarifications within two weeks. The Court also noted that the petitioner had already paid the differential tax amount of ₹83,608.07 after disposal of the appeal, and she was free to bring this fact to the notice of the Appellate Authority.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
