The Madras High Court held that the Petitioner is not entitled to IGST relief due to Non-Payment of Tax by the registered supplier.
Facts
The petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.4,14,000/- to the second respondent by including the GST payable of Rs.4,14,000/- on three invoices. It is therefore submitted that since the petitioner has paid the tax due on these three invoices dated 23.11.2018 to the second respondent, the petitioner cannot be asked to pay IGST.
Submissions
Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief in view of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 r/w Rule 36(4).
Decision
The single judge bench of Justice C. Saravanan observed that a registered person is not entitled to credit of input tax in respect of any supply of goods or services of both if tax is not paid to the Government. The registration of the second respondent has been cancelled on 31.10.2018 before three invoices dated 23.11.2018 were raised. Thus, it is clear that the second respondent could not have paid the tax to the ex-chequer.
The court held that there cannot be a mandamus to the first respondent contrary to the provisions of the respective GST Act of 2017 and the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, there is no merits in the writ petition. The petitioner is however entitled to recover the amount from the suppliers in the manner known to law.
Case title: M/s.Jai Balaji Paper Cones v/s The Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Tiruchengode and Ors.
Citation: W.P.No.6780 of 2020
