GST Update

 Desk of CA. Praveen Sharma – 1017 Series (CAPS) 

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF Saboo Tor Pvt. Ltd

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following substantial relief(s):

“i. For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to quash the order i.e. DRC-07 dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-3), as the notices were issued and the order was passed without issuing ASMT-10. Further, the show cause notice was issued without appreciating the factual and legal position that the petitioner had already paid the tax to the sellers and was in possession of all the documents required for claiming the Input Tax Credit. The petitioner cannot be compelled to perform the impossible act of ensuring whether the seller has discharged its tax liability or not, in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in similar matters

ii. For issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records pertaining to the petitioner’s case and after examining the validity and legality thereof, to quash and set aside the notices issued for denying the Input Tax Credit to the petitioner.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, at present, the petitioner is not pressing Relief No. ii, while reserving the right to agitate the issue in an appropriate petition, if so desired.

It has further been submitted that after issuance of Show Cause Notice DRC-01 dated 24.05.2024 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply along with supporting documents claiming entitlement to the benefit of Input Tax Credit. However, without considering the same, order DRC-07 dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) came to be passed, which has been challenged in the present petition.

Admittedly, while passing the impugned order dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-3), the response of the petitioner contained in the reply along with the documents filed therewith was not considered.

It has further been submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the concerned authorities are directed to consider the claim/objections afresh along with the documents filed/to be filed by or on behalf of the petitioner before the competent authority in response to the aforesaid summary show cause notice, specifically dealing with whether the payments on purchases in question, along with GST, were actually paid to the supplier and whether the transactions and purchases in question are genuine and supported by valid documents, and whether such transactions and purchases were made before or after cancellation of the supplier’s registration, as well as compliance with statutory obligations by the petitioner regarding verification of the identity of the supplier, in accordance with law.

It has further been submitted that, if upon consideration of the relevant documents, it is found that all purchases and transactions are genuine, supported by valid documents, and were made prior to the cancellation of the supplier’s registration, the petitioner be granted the benefit of Input Tax Credit in question.

Learned Advocate General submitted that, in case the petitioner files a fresh response to the summary show cause notice before the competent authority along with relevant documents to substantiate the claim, the competent authority shall decide the same within a reasonable time.

In view of the above, order DRC-07 dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) is set aside and the present petition is disposed of by directing the competent authority to consider the objections along with documents, if so filed, within 30 days from today in response to the Show Cause Notice DRC-01 dated 24.05.2024 (Annexure P-1), keeping in view the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner, and to pass an appropriate speaking and reasoned order thereupon within six weeks from the date of filing of such objections/response, in accordance with law.

In case no objections are filed within 30 days in response to the show cause notice, the competent authority shall proceed further in accordance with law, treating that the petitioner has nothing to say in response to the said notice.”

LINK:CA. Praveen Sharma on Linkedin

Regards
CAPS