Case Details: S.P. Faizal vs. State of Kerala (2025) 36 Centax 418 (Ker.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Gopinath P. & Mohammed Nias C.P., JJ.
- R. Jaikrishna & C.S. Arun Shankar, Advs. for the petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-assessee purchased goods from registered selling dealers who had issued proper tax invoices and collected the tax component, but subsequently failed to remit the tax to the government treasury. The petitioner-assessee contended that under Section 2(xxiii) of the Kerala VAT Act, 2003, the definition of ‘input tax’ as tax paid or payable’ provided two independent bases for entitlement to input tax credit, and therefore, credit could be claimed even if the selling dealer later defaulted in remitting the tax. It was further contended that Section 11 of the Kerala VAT Act, 2003, imposed no statutory requirement linking credit eligibility to actual remittance of tax by the selling dealer, and that bona fide purchasers holding genuine invoices could not be penalised for seller defaults, particularly when the statute provided separate mechanisms under Sections 31 and 35 for recovery of unpaid taxes from defaulting sellers. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the statutory scheme of the Kerala VAT Act, 2003, treated the expressions ‘paid’ and ‘payable’ in Section 2(xxiii) as distinct and independent conditions, thereby enabling entitlement to input tax credit upon fulfilment of either condition. The Court held that Section 11 did not impose any obligation on the purchasing dealer to ensure that the selling dealer remitted the collected tax, nor did it condition credit eligibility upon such remittance. The Court further held that denying credit to bona fide purchasers possessing genuine tax invoices would result in unjust enrichment of the State, as it would effectively amount to taxing the same transaction twice. The Court concluded that the proper statutory remedy for the Department of Revenue was to invoke recovery mechanisms under Sections 31 and 35 against the defaulting selling dealers, and accordingly held that the petitioner-assessee was entitled to input tax credit.
List of Cases Cited
- C.P. Rasheed v. State of Kerala — 2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 207 (Ker.) — Overruled [Paras 2, 4, 8, 18, 19, 20]
- Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharanasala — (2009) 19 VST 84 (SC) — Relied on [Para 17]
- On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi — 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 182 (Del.) — Relied on [Paras 2, 7, 10, 15, 18]
