The High Court of Andhra Pradesh for the case of Thirumalakonda Plywoods Vs. The Assistant Commissioner would incorporate three crucial observations:
(i) Point No.1: The time limit specified to claim input tax credit (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.
(ii) Point No.2: Section 16(2) of APGST/CGST Act, 2017 contains no overriding effect on Section 16(4) of the stated Act since both are not contradictory with each other. The same shall function independently.
(iii) Point No.3: Simply accepting Form GSTR-3B returns with a late charge would not excuse failing to submit an ITC claim within the time frame provided in Section 16(4) of the APGST/CGST Act, 2017.
The applicant would be the only proprietorship accomplishing business in hardware and plywood with the trade name “Tirumalakonda Plywoods” started at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic and registered under APGST Act and CGST Act in March 2020.
The applicant obtained the email on 16.12.2021 U/s 74(1) of SGST /CGST Act r/w Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017 by the 1st respondent remarking that the applicant claimed input for March 2020 and sought a reply under Gazette notification of CCT’s Ref.No.CCW/GST20015-A, dt; 30.0.6.2017.
But the stated notice was sent via the private Gmail ID and not complying the process under rule 142 (1) of APGST Rules, 2017, and was not served via its GST common portal or set any time for a reply according to Form GST DRC-01, still, the applicant furnished an answer via e-mail on 17.01.2022 with its Form GST DRC-06 and had Annexure-I in which the applicant seeks an opportunity U/s 74(5) of APGST Act, 2017, as the applicant does not only released late fee for late filing the return but indeed contested notice with his detailed submissions.
Rather than acknowledging the answer of the applicant in Form GST DRC 06, the first respondent would send the personal hearing notice on 22.02.2022 via private email ID mentioning that the applicant does not file any answer against the notice not does have chosen for the personal hearing, and therefore he would be required to file the answer on or prior to the date 22.02.2022 and had attended the personal hearing dated 02.03.2022.
High Court Order
The petitioners’ citations have been reviewed by the Coram. The majority of these rulings are based on the facts, and it was found that where the reason for the return filing delay was well justified, a penalty was not necessarily impossible. They do not discuss the restrictions of Section 16 of the APGST/CGST Act.
Hence the summary of the facts and laws they contain-
- (i) Point No.1: The time limit specified to claim ITC Under section 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.
- (ii) Point No.2: Section 16(2) of APGST/CGST Act, 2017 does not contain any overriding effect on Section 16(4) of the articulated Act since both do not contradictory with each other. They shall function independently.
- (iii) Point No.3: Simply accepting Form GSTR-3B returns with a late charge would not excuse failing to submit an ITC claim within the time frame provided in Section 16(4) of the APGST/CGST Act, 2017.
- (iv) Point No.4: Concerning these contentions, a review of the impugned Assessment Order dated 14.02.2022 issued by the 1st respondent reveals that the current opinions that the notice was not provided in proper form and no chance was allotted to hear, etc, that were taken in objections 1 to 10 of the answer via applicant were being discussed and eliminated via the first respondent. Therefore it is seen that there is no force in the current contentions.
Hence on the fetching of the points and law and in concern of the findings in Points 1 to 4, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
| Case Title | Thirumalakonda Plywoods Vs Assistant Commissioner |
| Citation | W.P.No.24235 of 2022 |
| Date | 18.07.2023 |
| AP High Court | Read Order |
