![]()
Case Summary: M/s. Holy Cross Hospital vs. The Assistant State Tax
Officer
Court:
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Case No.: WP(C) No. 24344 of 2023
Date of Order: June 28, 2024
Summary of the Case: The
case revolves around M/s. Holy Cross Hospital challenging the actions of the
Assistant State Tax Officer under the GST regime. The dispute arose due to
discrepancies in the filing of GST returns and the availability of Input Tax
Credit (ITC) under the new GST framework. The hospital, along with other
petitioners, faced issues where either the suppliers failed to reflect GST
payments in their returns, or the petitioners lacked clear proof of payment or
receipt of goods. The court had to address these challenges within the context
of recent GST circulars and procedural amendments.
Facts of the Case:
1.
Petitioner:
M/s. Holy Cross Hospital, represented by Sr. Josia.
2.
Respondent:
The Assistant State Tax Officer, State Goods and Services Tax Department,
Thiruvananthapuram.
3.
The petitioners were part of three
categories:
o
Suppliers had remitted GST but did not
reflect it in their returns due to technical errors.
o
Petitioners had valid invoices and proof
of payment but the suppliers had not remitted the GST.
o
Petitioners had invoices but lacked clear
proof of payment and possibly had not received the goods.
Submissions by the
Petitioner:
·
The petitioners argued that they were
unable to claim ITC due to the failure of their suppliers to reflect GST
payments in the returns.
·
They contended that the failure to remit
GST or technical issues should not preclude them from claiming ITC, especially
since they possessed valid invoices and payment proof.
·
They sought relief under the provisions of
Circulars issued to address the challenges faced during the initial
implementation of GST.
Submissions by the
Respondent:
·
The respondent, representing the GST
Department, maintained that ITC claims must adhere strictly to the provisions
of the GST Act.
·
They argued that without proper reflection
of the GST in the returns or clear proof of payment and receipt of goods, the
petitioners could not claim ITC.
·
The respondent also emphasized the
procedural requirements and the necessity of compliance with statutory
timelines.
Findings of the Court:
·
The court recognized the difficulties
faced during the initial rollout of GST, particularly the non-availability of
GSTR 2A for the financial years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.
·
It referred to the issuance of Circular
No. 183/15/2022-GST and Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST, which were designed to
resolve bona fide claims arising from these early challenges.
·
The court emphasized that the procedural
amendment extending the time for filing returns from September 30th to November
30th should be given retrospective effect from July 1, 2017.
Judgment:
The court disposed of the
writ petitions by:
·
Granting liberty to the petitioners to
claim the benefits of the Circulars within 30 days.
·
Directing the GST authorities to examine
and process the claims in accordance with the Circulars, if applicable.
·
Confirming that the time limit for
furnishing returns for September is to be treated as November 30th in each
financial year, retroactively from July 1, 2017.
·
Rejecting the challenge to the
constitutional validity of Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) of the GST Act.
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
