Case Details: Vivo Mobile India (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST - [2024] 160 taxmann.com 226 (Allahabad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Saumitra Dayal Singh & Surendra Singh-I, JJ.
- Nishant Mishra & Vedika Nath for the Petitioner.
- Gaurav Mahajan & Parv Agarwal, A.S.G.I. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was engaged in manufacturing of mobile phones. The department passed an assessment order and disallowed ITC of Rs.1,82,16,688/- and imposed equivalent penalty. It filed application for rectification of order but the same was rejected by the department. It filed writ petition against the order.
High Court Held
The Honorable High Court noted that the petitioner had challenged the order to extent that it refused to allow assessee to avail ITC and equivalent penalty in view of binding Circular No. 26/2017, dated 29-12-2017. The Court noted that the order of assessing authority insofar as it refused to entertain correction application to delete amount of penalty and interest by refusing to give effect to binding Circular No. 26/2017 was unsustainable.
The Court also noted that merely because the assessing authority may not have been aware of the Circular of the CBIC when it passed the assessment order, it may not have refused to apply its mind to that Circular upon correction application being filed. Therefore, it was held that the order of assessing authority was to be set aside and matter was to be remitted back as the issue ought to have been examined with seriousness.
The post HC Remanded Matter Back Since Adverse Decision Can’t be Passed Merely Because GST Authority Wasn’t Aware of Binding Circular appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
