{"id":9159,"date":"2023-07-28T12:44:40","date_gmt":"2023-07-28T11:44:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/?p=9159"},"modified":"2023-07-28T13:45:08","modified_gmt":"2023-07-28T12:45:08","slug":"the-time-limit-prescribed-for-claiming-itc-u-s-164-of-apgst-act-cgst-act-2017-is-not-violative-of-articles-14-191g-and-300-a-of-the-constitution-of-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/the-time-limit-prescribed-for-claiming-itc-u-s-164-of-apgst-act-cgst-act-2017-is-not-violative-of-articles-14-191g-and-300-a-of-the-constitution-of-india\/","title":{"rendered":"The time limit prescribed for claiming ITC U\/s 16(4) of APGST Act\/CGST Act, 2017 is not violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Thirumalakonda Plywoods v. The Assistant Commissioner [W.P.No.24235 of 2022 dated July 18, 2023] <\/a><\/em><\/strong>has held that, mere acceptance of GSTR-3B returns with late fee will not exonerate the delay in claiming Input Tax Credit beyond the period specified under section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Petitioner is a sole proprietorship doing business in hardware and plywood with the trade name "Tirumalakonda Plywoods" commenced during Covid-19 pandemic and registered under APGST Act and CGST Act during March, 2020.\n <\/p>\n

While so, petitioner received email dated 16.12.2021 U\/s 74(1) of SGST \/CGST Act r\/w Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017 by the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner availed input for March, 2020 and sought reply in the light of Gazette notification of CCT’s Ref.No.CCW\/GST20015-A, dt; 30.0.6.2017.\n <\/p>\n

Though the above notice was sent through a private gmail ID and not following the procedure under rule 142 (1) of APGST Rules, 2017 and not served through its GST common portal or specified any time for reply as per Form GST DRC-01, still the petitioner submitted reply through e-mail dated 17.01.2022 with its Form GST DRC-06 and enclosed Annexure-I wherein the petitioner sought an opportunity U\/s 74(5) of APGST Act, 2017, since the petitioner not only discharged late fee for delay in filing the return but also challenged notice with his detailed submissions.\n <\/p>\n

Instead of considering petitioner’s reply in Form GST DRC 06, the 1st respondent surprisingly sent a personal hearing notice dated 22.02.2022 through private e-mail ID stating that the petitioner did not file reply against their notice nor opted for personal hearing and hence he has to file reply on or before 22.02.2022 and attend personal hearing on 02.03.2022.\n <\/p>\n

Against the above notice, the petitioner through his advocate confirmed that he already filed his reply dated 17.01.2022.\n <\/p>\n

Subsequently the petitioner received e-mail dated 14.03.2022 sent by the 1st respondent along with an attachment containing order vide AOO No.ZH370322OD48625, dated 14.03.2022 whereunder, without considering the objections raised by the petitioner in his reply, the 1st respondent wrongly held as if the petitioner made an irregular claim of ITC of an amount of Rs.4,78,626\/- and fixed Rs.11,24,994\/- towards tax, penalty and interest.\n <\/p>\n

Hence the writ petition.<\/p>\n

Issues:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n