Court :
Madras High Court
Brief :
The Hon'ble Madras High Court in ARS Steel & Alloy International Pvt. Ltd. v. the State Tax Officer [W.P. Nos. 2885,2888,2890,3930,3936 and 3933 of 2020 and WMP. Nos. 3341,3345,3336,4664,4656 and 4661 of 2020 and W.P. No. 2885 of 2021, dated June 24, 2021] set aside the assessment orders passed by the Revenue Department rejecting a portion of the Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) on inherent manufacturing loss claimed by the assessee. Held that, reversal of ITC under Section 17(5)(h) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 (“the CGST Act”) in case of loss of input which is inherent to manufacturing loss is misconceived, as such loss is not contemplated or covered by situations adumbrated under Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act.
Citation :
W.P. Nos. 2885,2888,2890,3930,3936 and 3933 of 2020 and WMP. Nos. 3341,3345,3336,4664,4656 and 4661 of 2020 and W.P. No. 2885 of 2021, dated June 24, 2021
The Hon'ble Madras High Court in ARS Steel & Alloy International Pvt. Ltd. v. the State Tax Officer [W.P. Nos. 2885,2888,2890,3930,3936 and 3933 of 2020 and WMP. Nos. 3341,3345,3336,4664,4656 and 4661 of 2020 and W.P. No. 2885 of 2021, dated June 24, 2021] set aside the assessment orders passed by the Revenue Department rejecting a portion of the Input Tax Credit ("ITC") on inherent manufacturing loss claimed by the assessee. Held that, reversal of ITC under Section 17(5)(h) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 (“the CGST Act”) in case of loss of input which is inherent to manufacturing loss is misconceived, as such loss is not contemplated or covered by situations adumbrated under Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act.
ARS Steel & Alloy International Pvt. Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) is engaged in the manufacture of MS Billets and Ingots. MS scrap is an input in the manufacture of MS Billets and the latter, in turn, constitutes an input for manufacture of TMT/CTD Bars. There is a loss of a small portion of the inputs, inherent to the manufacturing process.
This batch of writ petition has been filed against the assessment order (“impugned order”) passed by the State Tax Officer (“the Respondent”) that seeks to reverse a portion of the ITC claimed by the Petitioner, proportionate to the loss of the inputs, referring to the provisions of Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act for the periods 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20.
Whether a reversal of ITC is contemplated in relation to loss arising from manufacturing process?
The Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. Nos. 2885,2888,2890,3930,3936 and 3933 of 2020 and WMP. Nos. 3341,3345,3336,4664,4656 and 4661 of 2020 and W.P. No. 2885 of 2021 dated June 24, 2021, held as under:
“19. Input tax credit-
(1) There shall be input tax credit of the amount of tax paid Omitted[or Payable] under this Act, by the registered dealer to the seller on his purchases of taxable goods specified in the First Schedule :
Provided that the registered dealer, who claims input tax credit, shall establish that the tax due On purchase of goods has actually been paid in the manner prescribed by the registered dealer who sold such goods and that the goods have actually been delivered Provided further that the tax deferred under section 32 shall be deemed to have been paid under this Act for the purpose of this sub-section. ...........
(8) No input tax credit shall be allowed to any registered dealer in respect of any goods purchased by him for sale but given away by him by way of free sample or gift or goods consumed for personal use.
(9) No input tax credit shall be available to a registered dealer for tax paid Omitted[or Payable] at the time of purchase of goods, if such-
"17. Apportionment of credit and blocked credits.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 16 and subsection (1) of section 18, input tax credit shall not be available in respect of the following, namely:-
.............
(h) goods lost, stolen, destroyed, written off or disposed of by way of gift or free samples;"