The Kerala High court has held that the burden of proof lies on the buyer to prove tax payment by the supplier for availing GST ITC (Input Tax Credit).
The bench of Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. has observed that for availing input tax credit, the burden is on the assessee to prove payment of tax by the supplier of inputs by providing tax invoices etc. Therefore, necessarily, it is for the appellant to prove his claim by availing the statutory remedy available under law.
The appellant/assessee is the proprietor of the business concern, named St.Mary’s Cashew Factory. The appellant is a registered assessee under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The department issued a show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act on 2.2.2023 alleging excess claim of input tax credit in respect of the tax paid on purchases on comparison between the returns in GSTR- 3B and the statement dated 15.11.2022 and demanding a sum of Rs.17,10,932 towards tax as well as interest and penalty.
The appellant/assessee filed the writ petition challenging the show cause notice, which was disposed of by the Single Judge. The Court directed the department to consider the claim of the appellant/petitioner for the benefit of the various Circulars governing the field. In pursuance to the judgment, the claim of the appellant was considered and disallowed by the department.
Read More: Bombay High Court Quashes GST Show Cause Notice To Wrong Address
The appellant claimed that he is entitled to get credit for input tax based on various invoices. The petitioner contended that among others, that the entire invoices in respect of supplies affected from the department were in the possession of the appellant. Non-consideration of these documents materially affected the final order so passed.
The appellant contended that even if power is exercised by the department, there is no reason whatsoever to disallow the claim of input tax credit by the purchaser supported with valid invoices.
The Single Judge considered the writ petition and found that the appellant/petitioner had not made any prima facie case for interference and, therefore, relegated the appellant to the remedy provided under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by preferring an application for rectification or to avail statutory remedies. The writ petition was dismissed.
The court held that the appellant has not made out a prima facie case for interference in this intra-court appeal. The exercise of writ jurisdiction is purely discretionary since the appellant has an effective alternate remedy.
Case Details
Case Title: Jaison Geevarghese Oommen Versus The Assistant Commissioner
Case No.: WA NO. 2057 OF 2024
Date: 13/01/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Aswin Gopakumar, Angita T. Menon, Anwin Gopakumar, Aditya Venugopalan, Mahesh Chandran, Saranya Babu, Abhishek S., Tanya Kadeeja
Counsel For Respondent: V K Shamsudheen
