23 Mar ITC Transition not to be denied in case of Input Service Distributor (ISD)
In the case of Siemens India Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 986 of 2019 dated February 09, 2024], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, drawing upon sub-section (7) of Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”), postponed the proceedings for further examination. The court upheld the temporary halt granted to the Assessee, who is an Input Service Distributor (“ISD”), emphasizing that Input Tax Credit (ITC) legitimately available to the Assessee before the Appointed Day should not be forfeited due to the absence of an effective procedural mechanism for transferring ITC to the Electronic Credit Ledger for utilization. This situation could lead to the permanent loss of such ITC.
Facts of the case:
Siemens India Ltd. (“the Petitioner”), registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD), initiated a writ petition regarding the transition of Input Tax Credit (ITC) available to them on July 1, 2017 (“the Appointed Day”). The petition contested the Revenue Department’s (“the Respondent”) refusal to allow transition or utilization of ITC in the Electronic Credit Ledger, citing a defective electronic mechanism.
These proceedings stemmed from a Supreme Court order dated March 24, 2023, in Union of India and Ors. v. Siemens Ltd. and Ors [SLP (Civil) Diary No. 7213 of 2023], directing a fresh consideration of the case, taking into account relevant contentions and legal provisions.
Issue:
Is an Input Service Distributor (ISD) entitled to transition ITC available on the Appointed Day?
Held:
The Bombay High Court, in Writ Petition 986 of 2019, made the following determinations:
- The primary concern revolves around the legal ramifications of sub-section (1) and sub-section (7) of Section 140 of the CGST Act, outlining transitional arrangements for the carry-forward and utilization of ITC by ISDs.
- Citing sub-section (7) of Section 140 of the CGST Act, the Court emphasized that legitimately available ITC with the Petitioner before the Appointed Day cannot be forfeited due to the absence of an effective procedural mechanism for transferring ITC to the Electronic Credit Ledger for utilization, thus preventing permanent loss of such ITC.
- The Court suggested that a thorough examination of these issues by the GST Council would aid in the adjudication process.
- It was decided that interim relief granted to the Petitioner would remain in force.
- The case was adjourned until August 9, 2024.
No Comments