Rajasthan High Court Orders Tehsildar To Personally Pay ₹2 Lakh Compensation For 53-Day Illegal Detention Despite Suspension Of Sentence Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High 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