Sri.Puthaparambil Shereef Shanavas vs State Tax Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 5110 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 5110 Ker
Judgement Date : 15 February, 2024

Kerala High Court

Sri.Puthaparambil Shereef Shanavas vs State Tax Officer on 15 February, 2024

Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
    THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 3970 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

          SRI. PUTHAPARAMBIL SHEREEF SHANAVAS,
          AGED 40 YEARS,
          PROPRIETOR, GREAT WOOD PLY AND BOARDS, KOONAM ROAD,
          KURUMATHUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670142.

          BY ADVS.
              SRI. RAJESH NAMBIAR
              SRI. SINDHU K. NAMBIAR


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE TAX OFFICER,
          STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,
          TAX PAYER SERVICE CIRCLE, TALIPARAMBA, PIN - 670141.

    2     JOINT COMMISSIONER,
          STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,
          KANNUR, PIN - 670002.

    3     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

          BY ADV.
             SMT. RESHMITA RAMACHANDRAN - GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 3970 OF 2024

                                       2


                         DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
                              --------------------------
                           W.P.(C) No. 3970 of 2024
                               -------------------------
                   Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024

                                  JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of

the intimation to the petitioner blocking the input tax credit.

2. The Rule 86A of the GST Rules, 2017 provides the conditions

of use of amount available in the electronic credit ledger and

empowers the Commissioner or the Officer authorised by him under

Sub-Rule (1) to disallow the debit on electronic credit ledger on

being satisfied that the conditions for disallowing the debit exist.

Rule 86A of the GST Rules, 2017 reads as under;

RULE 86A- Conditions of use of amount available in electronic credit ledger-

"(1)Commissioner or an officer authorised by him in this behalf, not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner, having reasons to believe that credit of input tax available in the electronic credit ledger has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible in as much as:

a) the credit of input tax has been availed on the strength of tax invoices or debit notes or any other document prescribed under rule 36-

WP(C) NO. 3970 OF 2024

i. issued by a registered person who has been found non-existent or not to be conducting any business from any place for which registration has been obtained; or ii. without receipt of goods or services or both; or

b) the credit of input tax has been availed on the strength of tax invoices or debit notes or any other document prescribed under rule 36 in respect of any supply, the tax charged in respect of which has not been paid to the Government; or

c) the registered person availing the credit of input tax has been found non-existent or not to be conducting any business from any place for which registration has been obtained; or

d) the registered person availing any credit of input tax is not in possession of a tax invoice or debit note or any other document prescribed under rule 36, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, not allow debit of an amount equivalent to such credit in electronic credit ledger for discharge of any liability under section 49 or for claim of any refund of any unutilised amount."

(2) The Commissioner, or the officer authorised by him under sub-rule (1) may, upon being satisfied that conditions for disallowing debit of electronic credit ledger as above, no longer exist, allow such debit.

WP(C) NO. 3970 OF 2024

(3) Such restriction shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of imposing such restriction."

3. Ms. Reshmita Ramachandran, learned Government Pleader

submits that allegations against the petitioner are that the input tax

credit has been claimed on the basis of the forged invoices without

supply of any goods and services and the competent Officer has

reason to believe that the claim for input tax credit is fraudulent

claim.

4. This Court does not find that impugned notices/intimation are

without jurisdiction or contrary to the law as provided under the

GST Act or Rules made thereunder. Therefore, this Court find no

ground to interfere with the impugned intimation and notices.