First proceed against the Supplier and only under exceptional circumstance proceedings can be initiated for reversal of excess credit availed in Form GSTR-3B as compared to Form GSTR-2A by the recepient

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Suncraft Energy Private Limited and Another v. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax [MAT 1218 of 2023 dated August 02, 2023] – HC-GW-785-2023-WB set aside the order of reversing excess credit availed in Form GSTR-3B as compared to Form GSTR-2A for the Financial Year 2017-18 and directed to first proceed against the fourth respondent (Supplier) and only under exceptional circumstance proceedings can be initiated.

Facts:

The appellant has impugned the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Ballygunge Charge, the Respondent No. 1 date 20.02.2023 by which the first respondent reversed the input tax credit availed by the appellant under the provisions of West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (WBGST Act).

The 4th respondent is a supplier of the appellant who provided supply of goods and services to the appellant who had made payment of tax to the fourth respondent at the time of effecting such purchase along with the value of supply of goods/ services. However, in some of the invoices of the said supplier was not reflected in the GSTR 2A of the appellant for the Financial Year 2017-18.

The first respondent issued notices for recovery of the input tax credit availed by the appellant and the grievance of the appellant is that without conducting any enquiry on the supplier namely, the fourth respondent and without effecting any recovery from the fourth respondent, the first respondent was not justified in proceeding against the appellant.

the appellant was served with the show-cause notice dated 06.12.2022 proposing a demand as to the excess ITC claimed by the appellant for the Financial Year 2017-18 on the basis of the difference of the amount of ITC in Form GSTR-2A and Form GSTR-3B with respect to the purchase transaction made by the appellant with the fourth respondent.

The appellant filed detailed replies on 06.01.2023 and 11.01.2023, denying the allegations made in the show-cause notice and among other things submitted that the appellant had made payment of tax to the fourth respondent arising from the transaction and thereafter availed ITC on the said purchase.

The show-cause notice was adjudicated and by order dated 20.02.2023 a demand for payment of tax of Rs. 6,50,511/- along with applicable interest and penalty was confirmed under Section 73(10) of the Act.

Aggrieved by such order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court.

The Petitioner contended that despite having fulfilled all the conditions as has been enumerated under Section 16(2) of the Act, the first respondent erred in reversing the credit availed and directing the appellant to deposit the tax which has already been paid to the fourth respondent at the time of availing the goods/ services.

Observations:

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has observed as under:

• The effect and purport of Form GSTR-2A was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. that, Form GSTR-2A is only a facilitator for taking a confirm decision while doing such self-assessment. Non-performance or non-operability of Form GSTR-2A or for that matter, other forms will be of no avail because the dispensation stipulated at the relevant time obliged the registered persons to submit return on the basis of such self-assessment in Form GSTR-3B manually on electronic platform.
• The show cause notice does not allege that the appellant was not in possession of a tax invoice issued by the supplier registered under the Act. There is no denial of the fact that the appellant has received the goods or services or both.
• The first respondent without resorting to any action against the fourth respondent who is the selling dealer has ignored the tax invoices produced by the appellant as well as the bank statement to substantiate that they have paid the price for the goods and services rendered as well as the tax payable there on, the action of the first respondent has to be branded as arbitrarily
• Unless and until the first respondent is able to bring out the exceptional case where there has been collusion between the appellant and the fourth respondent or where the fourth respondent is missing or the fourth respondent has closed down its business or the fourth respondent does not have any assets and such other contingencies, straight away the first respondent was not justified in directing the appellant to reverse the input tax credit availed by them.

Held:

Therefore the demand raised on the appellant dated 20.02.2023 is not sustainable.