M/S Santosh Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 73

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: (i) that he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by the supplier or such other tax paying documents; Operative disposition: In view of the fair statement made by Sri Ankur Agarwal, the impugned order dated 26.7.2023 is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 to pass fresh orders within a period of one month from today, taking into consideration the circular as well as any other material relied upon by the petitioner in support of its
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

The judgment is concise. Read the complete packaged record for the factual and procedural chronology.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

"3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to a circular dated 2.1.2023 with regard to the input tax availed in the form of GSTR-3B and has placed reliance on paragraph 3(d) to demonstrate that where the supplier has filed Form GSTR-1 as well as return in the Form of GSTR-3B for the tax period, but he has declared the supply with wrong GSTIN of the recipient in the Form of GSTR-1. In such cases, the difference in ITC claimed by the registered person in his return in Form of GSTR-3B and that available in Form GSTR-2A may be handled by following the procedure provided in para 4 of the circular. In addition, the proper officer of the actual recipient shall intimate the concerned jurisdictional tax authority of the registered person, whose GSTIN has been mentioned wrongly, that ITC on those transactions is required to be disallowed, if claimed by such recipients in their Form GSTR-3B. However, allowance of ITC to the actual recipient shall not depend on the completion of the action by the tax authority of such registered person, whose GSTIN has been mentioned wrongly, and such action will be pursued as an independent action.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the authority was required to follow certain procedure as laid down in paragraph 4 of the circular. He further submits that the impugned order though mentions the aforesaid circular, but the benefit under the said circular has not been extended to the petitioner. He submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the authority concerned for decision afresh.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

6. In view of the fair statement made by Sri Ankur Agarwal, the impugned order dated 26.7.2023 is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 to pass fresh orders within a period of one month from today, taking into consideration the circular as well as any other material relied upon by the petitioner in support of its case."

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S Santosh Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another concerns issue and context: (i) that he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by the supplier or such other tax paying documents; operative disposition: in view of the fair statement made by sri ankur agarwal, the impugned order dated 26.7.2023 is, hereby, set aside. the matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 to pass fresh orders within a period of one month from today, taking into consideration the circular as well as any other material relied upon by the petitioner in support of its The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. 1185 of 2022.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: (i) that he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by the supplier or such other tax paying documents; Operative disposition: In view of the fair statement made by Sri Ankur Agarwal, the impugned order dated 26.7.2023 is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 to pass fresh orders within a period of one month from today, taking into consideration the circular as well as any other material relied upon by the petitioner in support of its Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 73—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 73 and the decision date 2023-10-11; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/S Santosh Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 1185 of 2022, and the decision is dated 2023-10-11. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 73. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 16 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 73 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Mohd. Akib v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/s Betterbot Tech Services Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Sandeep Singhal v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Nitin Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 792 judgments
• Explore Input Tax Credit

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY