Wrong Indication of GSTIN: Madras HC quashes Denial of GST Input Tax Credit for GSTR-3B GSTR-2A Mismatch [Read Order]

A Single Bench of the Madras High Court quashed the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) assessment order where the petitioner was disallowed from claiming the Input Tax Credit for wrong mentioning of the Goods and Services Tax Identification Number ( GSTIN ) inadvertently. The petitioner challenged the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) assessment order by which the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) claimed by the petitioner was disallowed on the ground that the details submitted in the petitioner’s return did not tally with that in the GSTR-2A return. The petitioner is a registered person under applicable GST laws. He received a GST show cause notice dated 27.01.2023 alleging that he had made an excess claim of ITC and that this was evident on comparing his GSTR-3B return with the GSTR-2A return.

By a reply, the petitioner explained that the relevant invoice was issued by the petitioner’s supplier, M/s. Kirthi Enterprises, but that they had wrongly indicated the GSTIN of the sister concern of the petitioner, namely, Premier Corporations. By stating that this reply was disregarded and the proposal to impose tax, interest and penalty was confirmed, this writ petition was filed. By further referring to the GSTR-1 return of Kirthi Enterprises, he pointed out that invoice no.123 was wrongly shown as having been issued to Premier Corporation. Since the availment of ITC was based on a genuine purchase by the petitioner from Kirthi Enterprises, learned counsel submits that the impugned order warrants interference. T.N.C.Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader, accepted notice on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the petitioner should take recourse to rectification proceedings if the return was wrongly filed by the supplier.

The Bench noted that, “The documents on record, such as invoice dated 20.09.2017 and the GSTR return of Kirthi Enterprises, prima facie indicate that the GSTIN of Premier Corporation was wrongly mentioned by Kirthi Enterprises in the return. If that is indeed the case, the petitioner would be unjustly deprived of ITC. In order to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to redress this grievance, interference with the impugned order is called for.” It was thus held that, “the impugned order dated 25.08.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the assessing officer.” The assessing officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh assessment order within a period of two months thereafter. “It is also open to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition, if necessary, to set right the error complained of by the petitioner”, the bench added.

Leave a Reply