![]()
Case Summary: M/S Key Systems Vs. State Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C)
No. 26839 of 2024
Date of Order: 31st
July 2024
Court:
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Summary of Case: The
petitioner, Key Systems, challenged the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the
State Tax Officer (First Circle, Alappuzha) under the CGST/SGST Acts. The
denial was based on a discrepancy between the Provisional and Permanent GST
Registration Numbers used in the payment of tax collected from the petitioner
by BSNL. The High Court of Kerala ordered a reconsideration of the matter by
the respondent, highlighting the need to address the petitioner’s contention
about payments made under the Provisional Registration.
Facts of the Case:
·
Petitioner:
Key Systems, a registered dealer under the CGST/SGST Acts, holding Provisional
Registration No. 32AACFK4681K1Z9 and Permanent Registration No.
32AACFK4681K2Z8.
·
Issue:
The petitioner made certain purchases from BSNL, and the GST collected was
remitted against the Provisional Registration Number (32AACFK4681K1Z9).
However, the benefit of ITC was denied because the payments were not made
against the Permanent Registration Number (32AACFK4681K2Z8).
Submissions by
Petitioner:
·
The petitioner argued that the payments
made for the purchases were remitted by BSNL against the Provisional
Registration Number before the Permanent Registration was granted.
·
They claimed that the 1st respondent
(State Tax Officer) did not consider this aspect in their order (Exhibit P4).
·
The petitioner sought the setting aside of
the denial of ITC and reconsideration of the case.
Submissions by
Respondent:
·
The learned Government Pleader referred to
the order (Exhibit P4), emphasizing that ITC was denied because the payments
were not linked to the Permanent Registration Number.
·
It was argued that the law requires that
ITC be claimed against payments made using the proper Registration Number,
which, in this case, was not adhered to.
Findings and Decision of
the Court:
Finding:
The Court noted that the 1st respondent did not adequately consider the
petitioner’s claim regarding payments made under the Provisional Registration.
The court found that if the payments for which ITC was claimed were made under
the Provisional Registration, there was no reason to deny the credit.
Decision:
The Court set aside the order (Exhibit P4) to the extent that it denied ITC to
the petitioner and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter, taking
into account the observations made in the judgment.
Conclusion: The
High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering a fresh examination of
the case by the State Tax Officer. The Court stressed that the technicality
regarding the Registration Number should not result in the denial of legitimate
tax credits if the payments were indeed made under the Provisional
Registration.
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
