Case Details: Joint Commissioner Versus Goverdhandham Estate Pvt. Ltd.- (2025) 26 Centax 401 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Mrs B.V. Nagarathna & Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
- Ms Disha Singh, AOR for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a hotel operator, filed GST returns for 2017-18, claiming ITC on elevators and air conditioners. The Revenue department issued Form GST ASMT-10, disputing ITC eligibility under Section 17(5). The petitioner argued these items qualified as “plant and machinery” essential for hotel operations. Accepting this, the department issued Form GST ASMT-12, closing the case. However, it later initiated proceedings under Section 73, prompting the petitioner to challenge the action before the Rajasthan High Court, which ruled that Section 73 could not be invoked once the explanation was accepted. The department then approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, stating that Section 73 applies only when an assessee’s explanation is unsatisfactory. Since the department had already accepted the explanation and issued Form GST ASMT-12, reopening proceedings under Section 73 was unjustified. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming that settled matters under Section 61 cannot be arbitrarily reopened.
List of Cases Cited
- SLP Dismissed Goverdhandham Estate (P.) Ltd. v. State Of Rajasthan — (2025) 26 Centax 400 (Raj.)/[2025] 170 taxmann.com 727 (Raj.) — Referred [Para1]
