Madras High Court
Tvl.Sripathi Paper And Boards Private ... vs Assistant Commissioner (St) on 5 September, 2024
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
W.P.(MD).No.23670 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P.(MD).Nos.23670 and 23677 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.19842, 19849 of 2023, 8373 and 8374 of 2024
W.P.(MD).No.23670 of 2024
Tvl.Sripathi Paper and Boards Private Limited,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
Mr.R.Sudharsan. ... Petitioner
Vs.
Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Virudhunagar 3 Circle,
Commercial Taxes Building,
NH 07 Madurai Road,
Virudhunagar – 1. ...Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
impugned rectification order in GSTIN/33AAGCS7439C1ZG/2018-19 dated
12.09.2023 issued by the respondent and to quash the same.
W.P.(MD).No.23677 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/15
W.P.(MD).No.23670 of 2024
Tvl.Sripathi Paper and Boards Private Limited,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
Mr.R.Sudharsan. ... Petitioner
Vs.
Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Virudhunagar 3 Circle,
Commercial Taxes Building,
NH 07 Madurai Road,
Virudhunagar – 1. ...Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
impugned assessment order in GSTIN/33AAGCS7439C1ZG/2018-2019 dated
30.06.2023 issued by the respondent and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sureshkumar
Additional Government Pleader
(In both cases)
COMMON ORDER
The Writ Petitions are filed challenging the impugned order of assessment
dated 30.06.2023 and the consequential order dated 12.09.2023 passed in the
rectification petition filed by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is
engaged in the business of manufacture of paper, paperboard in India with focus on
recycled grades and specializes in the manufacture of duplex boards, kraft paper,
writing and printing papers. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the TNGST
Act and filed its returns periodically by paying appropriate taxes. While so, on
18.08.2021, the petitioner was served with an Audit Note for audit of the financial
years 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 under TNGST Act. Subsequently, audit
was transferred to Tirunelveli Circle and a revised audit notice in Form ADT-01
dated 04.10.2021 was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner RAL,
Tirunelveli Circle. Pursuant thereto, the audit team visited the petitioner's premises
on various dates, namely, 20.01.2022, 21.01.2022, 24.01.2022, 28.01.2022, 01.02.2022
and 03.02.2022 respectively. On completion of audit on 03.02.2022, an audit
summary report in A.R.No.1/2022 was issued to the petitioner.
3. It is submitted that the audit report pointed out several defects, in all 38
defects, relating to the assessment year 2018-2019. A detailed reply was filed by the
petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Tirunelveli Circle in response to the
audit summary report, while also requesting further time. The petitioner's request
was rejected and final audit report in Form ADT-02 dated 22.02.2022 was issued to
the petitioner confirming all the 38 defects mentioned in the audit summary report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In the impugned order, reference was made to DRC-01A notice dated 11.03.2022
relating to the financial year 2018-2019. However, the petitioner was not served with
the said notice.
4. Thereafter, show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 17.10.2022 was
issued invoking Section 73 and 74 of the TNGST Act, wherein, the audit report was
adopted and 38 defects were set out. A personal hearing notice dated 05.12.2022 was
issued to the petitioner fixing the personal hearing on 14.12.2022 and the petitioner
attended the personal hearing on 14.12.2022 and 26.12.2022. Thereafter, two more
personal hearing notices dated 20.10.2023 and 26.01.2023 were issued to the
petitioner fixing the personal hearing on 25.01.2023 and 09.02.2023 respectively. On
25.01.2023, the petitioner filed a detailed reply with documentary evidence in
response to each of the defects/discrepancies pointed out in the notice as contained
in the audit report. The respondent thereafter proceeded to pass the impugned order
of assessment dated 30.06.2023, wherein, 31 out of the 38 defects were confirmed,
which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petitions.
5. The impugned order of adjudication is challenged on the premise that the it
has been passed without dealing with the petitioner's objections and without
assigning any reasons for rejecting the detailed objection filed by petitioner, thus
suffers from non-application of mind and also from the vice of being a non-speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order.
6. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out two
instances, which would indicate that the impugned order has been made in great
haste and in gross non-application of mind to the material on record, which reads as
follows:
(i) Defect No.12:
The claim of ITC made in the assessment year 2018-2019 was rejected on the
premise that the same was blocked in the financial year 2017-2018. As regards the
said defect, the petitioner had submitted a detailed objection stating that the ITC as
per the audit financial statement was availed only by adding the credit of Rs.
5,98,79,346/- from the ITC received in the year 2017-2018, but availed in the year
2018-2019. It was also submitted that the audit pointed out that ITC booked in
2017-2018 but claimed in 2018-2019 by Rs.5,98,79,346.33/-. It was submitted by the
petitioner in its reply that ITC amount has been taken in the books of account along
with other ITC and declared in GSTR-9C Table 12B as Rs.5,98,79,346.33/-. The
abstract for credit amount received in 2018-2019 was enclosed as evidence. It was
thus submitted that there is no difference in ITC. The relevant portion of the
objection filed by the petitioner is extracted hereunder:
''The department has raised the point of discrepancy of ITC of Rs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
59879346/- in taking the credit received in 2017-2018 but availed in 2018-2019
as detailed here under.
1. The ITC availed in 2018-2019 is Rs.473779540.00
2. Less ITC booked in 2018-19
But availed in 2019-20 (-) Rs.102296461.00
Rs.463483079.00
3. Add the ITC received in 2017-18
But availed in 2018-19 (+) Rs. 59879346.00
Rs.523362425.00
Hence the ITC as per Audited Financial Statements as per Audited Financial
Statements or book of accounts of Rs.523362425.00 has been availed only be
adding in the credit of Rs.59879346.00 from the ITC received in 2017-18 but
availed in 2018-19. Copies of GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C are enclosed for verification.
“Table -12-B of GSTR-9C for the FY 2018-19
Description Input Tax Credit
(Rs)
A. ITC availed as per audited Annual Financial 533658886.43
Statement for the State/UT (For multi-GSTIN units
under same PAN this should be derived from books of
accounts)
B. ITC booked in earlier Financial Year-2017-18 0
claimed in current Financial Year-2018-19 (+)
C. ITC booked in current Financial Year to be claimed 10296461
in subsequent Financial Years (-)
D. ITC availed as per audited financial statements or 523362425.43
books of account
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E. ITC claimed in Annual Return (GSTR9) 562557562.27
F. Un-reconciled ITC 39195136.84
12C. ITC booked in current Financial GSTR-9C-2017-18 5,98,79,346.33
Year 2017-18 to be claimed in
subsequent Financial Years (2018-19)
12B. ITC booked in earlier Financial GSTR-9C-2018-19 0
Year 2017-18 claimed in current
Financial Year-2018-19
Discrepancy 5,98,79,346.33
From the above it is proved that availed ITC of Rs.533658886.43 as per Audited
Financial Statement for the year 2018-19. ITC booked in 2018-19 but availed in
2019-20 is not available in 2018-19 so that value of Rs.10296461/- is substracted
and added with ITC received in 2017-18, but availed in 2018-19 ITC of Rs.
583241771/- which availed ITC in 2018-19. The following table showing the
excess availing ITC during 2018-19.
Sl.No Particulars ITC VALUE
1 ITC availed in 2018-2019 533658886
2 LESS: ITC booked in 2018-19, But availed in 10296461
2019-20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 TOTAL 523362425
4 Add the ITC received in 2017-18, But availed 59879346
in 2018-19
5 TOTAL 583241771
6 LESS: ITC availed as per audited financial 523362425
statements
7 Discrepancy 59879346
It is submitted that the petitioner made the claim of ITC as per the audited financial
statement, shown in Column A, however, in Column B, the petitioner had
inadvertently stated it to be 'nil'. The petitioner had explained the said discrepancy
in its detailed objections. However, the entire objection was rejected by the
respondent by merely stating as follows:
''The objection filed by the dealer not convincing and are not acceptable. Hence,
the notice already issued proposing to levy tax of Rs.5,98,79,346 is hereby
ordered to be confirmed.''
(ii) Defect No.27:
By referring to Defect No.27, it was pointed out that the same related to ITC
availed in electronic credit ledger, where there was difference between GSTR-3B,
GSTR-2A and GSTR-9. Detailed objections were filed by the petitioner. The relevant
portion is extracted hereunder:
“The department has raised the point that the tax payer has availed excess credit of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CGST Rs.17751938/- SGST Rs.17751938/- & IGST Rs.11364129/- in GSTR-3B
than the credit reflecting/available in GSTR-2A as per Table 8A of GSTR-9. We
have availed the credit as per the ITC register maintained based on the Tax
invoices availing ITC as per the provisions of section 16 of CGST/TNGST Act
2017.
On verification of accounts it is ascertained that the ITC taken as per the Books
and records are as under after deducting the ITC on import of goods, ITC of tax
paid under RCM, and ITC of 2017-18 taken in 2018-19.
Particulars of ITC IGST CGST SGST
Total ITC as per 205994959.15 137381712.94 137381712.94
Books 18-19
Less import 92117352.50 - -
Less RCM - 3243404.53 3243404.53
Less ITC of 17-18 13270595.39 9839217.47 9839217.47
taken in 18-19
Net ITC for 18-19 100607011.26 124299090.94 124299090.94
Table 8A of GSTR-9 104601290.00 120052059.00 120052059.00
Difference -3994278.74 4247031.94 4247031.94
From the above it can be seen the difference amount of ITC is not as raised by the
department available 16 in the defect note. The work sheet for availing ITC as per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
credit available in ITC register and as per Audit Para are attached herewith for
reference.
The above credit of ITC based on books were taken under section 16(2) on the basis
of tax invoices received along with goods and services. If the tax invoices are not
reflecting in the GSTR-2A, due to fault of suppliers, the same cannot be restricted
during the period 2018-19. In this connection, it is submitted that the restriction
to take credit in GSTR-3B, with reference to credit reflecting in GSTR-2A, has
been introduced only with effect from 9/10/2019 vide Noti. No. 49/2019-CT dated
9/10/2019 and therefore the restriction is not applicable during the material period
2018-19.
From 9/10/2019 to 31/12/2019 we can take credit 20% of credit that is reflecting
in GSTR-2A based on documents as per the provisions of rule 36 of
CGST/TNCST Rules 2017. With effect from January 2020, we can take credit of
10% of credit available in GSTR-2A based on documents vide Noti. No. 75/2019-
CT dated 26/12/2019. As the tax period involved in the notice is 2018-19, this
restriction is not applicable to the instant case. We submit that the ITC can be
taken on the basis of invoices received for purchase of goods and services on the
basis of documents under section 16 CGST Act 2017.
Hence the point raised that the ITC has to be availed to the extent as reflecting in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
GSTR-2A is without any authority of law during the material period. Since the
credit has been taken based on tax invoice documents as prescribed under section
16 of CGST Act 2017, the same are eligible under section 16 ibid for ITC.
We submit that the ITC can be taken on the basis of invoices received for purchase
of goods and services on the basis of documents under section 16 TNGST/CGST
Act 2017. In this connection we rely on the Judgment dated 13/12/2021 of
Honorable Calcutta High Court in WPA No.23672 of 2019 in the case of M/s
LGW Industries & others Vs Union of India & others as reported in 2021-VIL
868-Cal wherein it has been held that the ITC has to be allowed on the basis of
documents and not on the basis of ITC available under GSTR-2A. In this
connection we also rely on the Honorable Madras High Court judgment in the
case of D.Y.Beathel Enterprises Vs State Tax Officer (Data cell) Tirunelveli, as
reported in 2022 (58) GSTL 269 (Mad) which is a jurisdictional High Court
judgment binding on the CGST Officers. We also rely on the Honorable
Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Inko Chemical India Pvt Ltd.
Vs Commercial Tax Officer reported in 2018(15) GSTL 523 (Mad) where it has
been held that non-disclosure of particulars in monthly return by selling dealer
cannot be cause to seek tax or reversal of ITC from purchasing dealer. We also rely
on the case of Honorable Kerala High Court Judgment in the case of St. Joseph Tea
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Co. Ltd. vs State Tax Officer 2021 (52) GSTL 395 (Ker) and the Honorable
Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Union of India Vs Bharati Airtel Ltd.
2021(54) GSTL257 (SC). In this judgment the Honorable Supreme Court has held
that GST is a self-assessment tax system based on document and that GSTR-2A is
only for the purpose of facilitation to the tax payer and not the sole document
based upon which ITC can be claimed. It is only the documents, records and
conditions prescribed in the CGST Act 2017 based upon which, the ITC can be
clalmed. Therefore the Supreme Court has clarified that the ITC cannot be made
dependent upon the GSTR-2A or GSTR-2B. These judgments are binding on the
Departments to maintain judicial discipline as held by the Honorable Supreme
court in the case of UOI Vs Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. 1991 (55) ELT
433 (SC) and as per Article 141 of Constitution of India.
As purchase documents such as Tax invoice are available for the credit amount, we
are rightly eligible for taking ITC. As such no credit is reversible or payable as
raised by the department. A work sheet showing the ITC availed in 2018-19
detailing the ITC for 2018-19 taken in 2019-20, the ITC of 2017-18 taken in
2018-19, reducing the import ITC and RCM ITC and Net ITC is submitted
herewith.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The same was again rejected by merely stating as follows:
“Objections filed, by the taxable person are not convincing and are not
acceptable, since they are not supported by valid documentary evidences of ITC
claiming register/statement as stated in the reply.”
It is submitted that while Defect No.27 represented a sum of
Rs.4,68,68,005/-, the impugned order contains three different figures, as seen from
page 239 of the typed set of papers. It is stated that the petitioner had availed ITC to
the extent of Rs.11,32,128/-, although this tax has not been discharged by its
supplier. In the very same page, there is another figure, wherein, ITC disallowed
was shown as Rs.82,60,354/-. However, in the final portion of the order, wherein,
the entire tax liability is determined, it shows that ITC is disallowed to the extent of
Rs.4,68,68,005/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
sum of Rs.11,32,128/- relates to Defect No.12 and the same has been adopted while
dealing with Defect No.27, which clearly demonstrates that there has been gross
non-application of mind to the facts and material on record.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the above
infirmities are only illustrative and that the objections in respect of all the defects
have been rejected in one line, although the petitioner has filed a detailed objection
along with annexures running to more than 60 pages.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent would submit that the respondent would re-do the entire
assessment.
9. In view thereof, the impugned order of assessment dated 30.06.2023 is set
aside and the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.23677 of 2023 stands disposed of. The
impugned order of assessment shall be treated as a show cause notice. The
petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 03.10.2024 at 11.00 AM and submit
their objections along with relevant documentary evidence. If any such objections
are filed, the respondent shall consider the same and pass a speaking order in
accordance with law after affording an opportunity of reasonable hearing to the
petitioner.
10. As regards the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.23670 of 2023 challenging the
order passed in the rectification petition filed by the petitioner, it was submitted by
both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional
Government Pleader for the respondent that in view of the fact that the impugned
order of assessment dated 30.06.2023 is now being set aside, nothing survives for
adjudication in the said Writ Petition. Recording the same, the Writ Petition in W.P.
(MD).No.23670 of 2023 stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (C.S.II)
// True Copy //
/10/2024
Sub Assistant Registrar
(CS - I, II, III, IV)
Lm
To
Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Virudhunagar 3 Circle,
Commercial Taxes Building,
NH 07 Madurai Road,
Virudhunagar – 1.
+1 CC to M/s.LAKSHMI KUMARAN AND SRIDHARAN, Advocate ( SR-49792[F]
dated 06/09/2024 )
+1CC to M/s.SPL.GP (SR[F} - 50181, dated 09.09.2024)
W.P.(MD).Nos.23670 and 23677 of 2023
05.09.2024
SL(03.10.2024)/ 15P/ 4C
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17.07.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
