Plaintiff In Title Suit Must Prove Own Case On Independent Evidence, Cannot Rely On Weakness Of Defence: Supreme Court Advocate Commissioner's Failure To Localize Land Per Title Deeds Fatal To Encroachment Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon, Can Be Motive For False Implication As Much As For Crime: Allahabad High Court Parity In Bail: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Robbery Case As Mastermind & Main Offenders Were Already Enlarged Specific Performance Denied If Buyer Fails To Prove Continuous Readiness With Funds; Part-Payment Can't Be Forfeited Without Specific Clause: Delhi High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept In Police Stations For Long, Courts Must Judiciously Exercise Power To Release On Supurdagi: Madhya Pradesh High Court Prolonged Incarceration Militates Against Article 21, Constitutional Principles Must Override Section 37 NDPS Rigors: Punjab & Haryana High Court Onus On Individual To Prove Claim Of 'Fear Of Religious Persecution' For Exemption Under Foreigners Act: Calcutta High Court Direct Recruits Cannot Claim Seniority From A Date Prior To Their Entry Into The Cadre: Orissa High Court Sale Deed Executed After Land Vests In State Confers No Title; Post-Vesting Purchaser Can’t Claim Compensation: Calcutta High Court No Right To Blanket Regularization For Contractual Staff; State Must Timely Fill Sanctioned Vacancies Under Reserved Quota: Supreme Court Non-Signatory Collaborator Under 'Deed Of Joint Undertaking' Can Invoke Arbitration Clause As A 'Veritable Party': Supreme Court Insolvency Proceedings Cannot Be Used As Coercive Recovery Mechanism For Complex Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To Sale Cannot Challenge Transfer Under PTCL Act After Long Delay: Supreme Court SC/ST Act | Proceedings To Annul Sale Illegal If Initiated By Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To The Transaction: Supreme Court Consumers Cannot Be Burdened With Tariff Charges Beyond Period Of Service Delivery: Supreme Court Mere Non-Production Of Old Selection Records Or Non-Publication Of All Candidates' Marks No Ground To Direct Appointment: Supreme Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal In Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case; Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Conspiracy Dishonour Of Cheque Due To Signature Mismatch Or Incomplete Signature Attracts Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | High Court Cannot Let Off Accused In NI Act Case By Ordering Only Cheque Amount Payment Without Interest Or Penalty: Supreme Court

Procedural Violations in Issuance of Show-Cause Notice Cannot be Overlooked": Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Denial of Input Tax Credit to Lokenath Construction Pvt. Ltd.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Calcutta has quashed both the show-cause notice and subsequent order denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) to Lokenath Construction Private Limited, citing procedural violations and jurisdictional errors by the West Bengal GST authorities.

Legal Point: The legal crux of the judgment revolves around the procedural propriety of the show-cause notice issued under Section 73(1) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, and the rightful claim of Input Tax Credit under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. The court critically examined whether the denial of ITC was justified when procedural norms and jurisdictional mandates were not adhered to by the tax authorities.

The appeal arose from a show-cause notice dated August 22, 2023, issued by the WBGST Authorities, claiming that Lokenath Construction had availed ITC without proper evidence of tax payment by its suppliers. The contention of the appellant was that the show-cause notice was procedurally flawed as it did not verify facts from the supplier's end before denying the credit.

The court highlighted the procedural anomaly where the tax authority failed to verify the tax payment details from the supplier before issuing the show-cause notice. Citing the principle set in the Suncraft Energy Private Limited case, the court underscored that tax authorities must first proceed against the supplier in such cases.

The adjudicating authority’s decision to reject certificates from Chartered Accountants without seeking clarifications was criticized. The court pointed out that unilateral decisions without providing an opportunity to the assessee to clarify discrepancies were procedurally unjust.

It was observed that the findings of the adjudicating authority extended beyond the allegations in the show-cause notice, indicating a breach of the principles of natural justice.

The court applied precedents including the Suncraft Energy case and the Bharti Airtel Ltd. case, emphasizing that the taxpayer's right to ITC cannot be impeded without substantive evidence of collusion or fraud involving the taxpayer.

Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside both the order dated December 28, 2023, and the initial show-cause notice. The court directed that the tax authorities first address any discrepancies with the supplier directly and only under exceptional circumstances, as outlined in relevant GST guidelines, should they proceed against the taxpayer.

Date of Decision: May 2, 2024

Lokenath Construction Private Limited v. Tax/Revenue Government of West Bengal and Others

Latest Legal News