![]()
Case Summary: Anoop Punnapuzha Mathew Vs. State Tax Officer, State
Goods and Service Tax Department, Thrissur
Case No: W.P(C)
No. 27246 of 2024
Court: High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Date of Order: 31st
July 2024
Summary of the Case: The
petitioner, Anoop Punnapuzha Mathew, challenged the denial of Input Tax Credit
(ITC) by the State Tax Officer on the grounds of delayed filing of the GSTR-3B
return for the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner claimed that the delay in
filing was minor and that the denial of ITC was unfair.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner argued
that the denial of ITC due to the delayed submission of GSTR-3B was in conflict
with the precedent set by the Kerala High Court in the case of *M. Trade Links
v. Union of India* (2024 KLT OnLine 1624). This judgment upheld the constitutional
validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Act but allowed ITC for returns
filed up to November 30th of the relevant year. The petitioner requested that
the court direct the respondent to reconsider the denial of ITC in light of
this judgment.
Submissions by the
Petitioner:
The petitioner’s counsel
submitted that the issue at hand was covered by the Kerala High Court's
decision in the *M. Trade Links v. Union of India* case, which allowed ITC for
returns filed by November 30th of the relevant financial year. The petitioner argued
that the denial of ITC based on delayed filing was unjust and requested that
the court set aside the denial.
Submissions by the
Respondents:
The respondents,
represented by the State Government Pleader, the Standing Counsel for CBIC, and
the Deputy Solicitor General of India, defended the denial of ITC on the
grounds that the petitioner had failed to comply with the statutory deadline
for filing the GSTR-3B return. They argued that the petitioner's claim for ITC
was invalid due to the delay.
Findings and Decision of
the Court:
The court found that the
petitioner's situation was indeed covered by the decision in *M. Trade Links v.
Union of India*. Therefore, the denial of ITC by the 1st respondent was not in
line with the precedent set by this court. The court directed the 1st respondent
to reconsider the petitioner's claim for ITC for the year 2018-19, in light of
the *M. Trade Links* judgment, and set aside the previous order to the extent
that it denied ITC due to the delayed filing.
Conclusion: The
court disposed of the writ petition, directing the State Tax Officer to
reconsider the petitioner’s claim for ITC for the financial year 2018-19, in
line with the directions issued in the *M. Trade Links* case. The previous
order denying ITC due to delayed filing was set aside, allowing the petitioner
an opportunity to claim the credit.
Disclaimer: All the Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Click here
