Top Stories Demand Order issued due to GST ITC claimed under wrong GSTIN by Suppliers: Allahabad HC orders fresh decision as per Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST [Read Order] Considering that Circular No.183/15/2022-GST was directly applicable to the petitioner’s issue, the Allahabad HC ordered a fresh order By Kavi Priya – On October 16, 2024 3:52 pm – 2 mins read In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court quashed the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) demand order against a taxpayer for claiming Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under an incorrect GSTIN. The court directed the tax authorities to pass a fresh decision following Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST. My Auto World ( Kanpur ) Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner supplies TATA-branded trucks and operates an authorized service station for TATA Motors Ltd.

The petitioner was issued two different GSTINs for the same PAN. One GSTIN was for the servicing activities under the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ), and another was for sales under the State Goods and Services Tax ( SGST ). Be a GST Expert: Get Essential Questions, Key Judgements and Practical Guide, Click Here Due to the issuance of two GSTINs, the petitioner claimed Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under one GSTIN, but the suppliers, including TATA Motors, raised invoices under the other GSTIN. The petitioner’s claim for ITC was denied due to mismatch ITC. The respondent issued a demand order on December 12, 2023, demanding Rs. 94,43,54,157, alleging excess ITC availed under one GSTIN. The petitioner challenged the demand order before the Allahabad High Court.

The Petitioner’s counsel argued that the Board’s Circular No.183/15/2022-GST allows ITC benefits even if suppliers mistakenly declare supplies with the wrong GSTIN. They claimed that since the invoices were issued under the correct GSTIN, the ITC must be adjusted accordingly. Be a GST Expert: Get Essential Questions, Key Judgements and Practical Guide, Click Here The petitioner’s counsel argued that this issue arose due to the state’s inaction and that the mismatched ITC could be adjusted between the GSTINs. The counsel relied on Santosh Kumar v. Additional Commissioner, 2022 where similar issues were resolved in favor of the taxpayer. On the other hand, the respondents did not oppose the petitioner’s arguments and agreed that the matter could be decided afresh following the Circular’s guidelines.

The bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf, J. and Justice Manjive Shukla, J. observed that Circular No.183/15/2022-GST was directly applicable to the petitioner’s case. The petitioner’s issue of incorrect ITC reporting between two GSTINs falls within the scope of the Circular. Be a GST Expert: Get Essential Questions, Key Judgements and Practical Guide, Click Here The court agreed with the ruling the petitioner relied on. Therefore, the court quashed the impugned order dated December 12, 2023. The court directed the respondent ( Joint Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kanpur ) to pass a fresh order in compliance with the guidelines laid out in Circular No.183/15/2022-GST.