実在しない架空の業者からの仕入れに対するITCは、当局および公的財政に対する詐欺である

Summary:

The Petitioner was engaged in manufacturing and sale of Aluminum Casting and Machinery Parts. The petitioner claimed ITC on inward supplies received from the supplier. During the conduct of the survey at the location of the supplier, it was found that the suppliers were non-existent and bogus firms. Therefore, corresponding ITC was disallowed to the petitioner and corresponding demand was raised alongwith interest and Penalty.

The petitioner produced all the documents pertaining to inward supplies such as Invoice, GRs, e-waybill, Ledger, Bank statement etc. The petitioner contended that he had actually received the inward supplies. The supplier firms were having valid GSTIN registrations at the time of transaction. If GSTIN registration of the firm is cancelled subsequently, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the same. Further, all the requirements of Section 16 are duly complied with for the purpose of claiming ITC.

Hon’ble High Court held that as per Section 16(2), no registered person shall be entitled to any ITC unless he has received the goods.  "Received the goods means the person claiming the ITC must have actually received the goods". Transaction existed only on papers, i.e., no inward supply is received, will not be entitled to the ITC. Further, If ITC is allowed to a person on the ground that the supplier was registered under GST, that would not create any estoppel against the authority taking appropriate action for claiming refund of the benefit wrongly availed on the ground of receiving inward supplies from non-existent firms. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned orders.

1. 本件の概要

• M/s Rajshi Processors Raebareli (“The Petitioner”) is engaged in manufacturing and sale of Aluminum Casting & Machinery Parts. 
• The petitioner Filed the GST return for May, 2019, August, 2019 and December, 2019.
• During the conduct of a survey at the place of the petitioner, the Special Investigation Branch (“SIB”), Commercial Tax found that the petitioner claimed to have received inward supplies from various supplies and claimed the corresponding ITC.
• When the survey was conducted on the place of suppliers, such suppliers were found to be non-existent and bogus firms. Besides the place of business declared, no other godown or Branch was found to be in existence of such suppliers.
• During enquiry it was found that the petitioner has knowingly claimed an excessive amount of ITC and had adjusted the same against the tax payable.
• The petitioner submitted his explanation alongwith the evidence, stating that it had received inward supplies. In support of its claim, the petitioner submitted invoices, copies of GR (goods receipts), e-way bill, ledger and bank statements of the firms etc. The inward supplies received by the petitioner are recorded in the stock register as well.
• The adjudicating authority did not accept the explanation of the petitioner and held that the tax invoices were issued without any actual supply of goods. 
• Accordingly, benefit of ITC was declined to the petitioner and a penalty was imposed on the petitioner alongwith interest.
• The petitioner filed an appeal against the impugned order.

2. Decision by Hon’ble Appellate Authority

The appellate authority found that:

1. The format of GR numbers produced by the petitioner was different even though all of those GRs were issued by the same transport company and it had no other branch.
2. Further, GST number was also mentioned on the transport builty. However, the GSTIN was found to be not valid as per the information available on the GST portal. 
3. Further, the contact number mentioned on the builty was also in use by some other person.
4. Therefore, it appears that the Bilties are attached to show the real inward supply by making adjustments. 
5. The Bilties had been produced merely to establish transactions with non-existing firms. No goods were transported from Agra to Raebareli and the transactions were paper transactions only.
6. Therefore, The appellate Authority held that there was no reason for making any interference in the order passed by the adjudicating authority.

3. Relevant Legal Extract

Relevant extract of the CGST Act is reiterated below for ready reference:

"16(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no registered person shall be entitled to the credit of any input tax in respect of any supply of goods or services or both to him unless,--

…

(b) he has received the goods or services or both.

[Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, it shall be deemed that the registered person has received the goods or, as the case may be services-

(i) where the goods are delivered by the supplier to a recipient or any other person on the direction of such registered person, whether acting as an agent or otherwise, before or during movement of goods, either by way of transfer of documents of title to goods or otherwise; (ii) where the services are provided by the supplier to any person on the direction of and on account of such registered person.]

…”

4. Contention of the petitioner before Hon’ble High Court

The petitioner contended that:

1. Subsequent cancellation of GST registration of the supplier

• The petitioner had actually received inward supplies and the same is established from the records produced before the adjudicating authority as well. 
• The supplier firms were having valid GSTIN registrations when the petitioner received the supplies. If GSTIN registration of the firm is cancelled subsequently, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the same. 
• Also, GST registrations of the suppliers were cancelled on their own applications.

2. Conditions for claiming Input Tax Credit

• For the purpose of claiming ITC, the petitioner was merely required to be in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by the supplier, receipt of goods and actual payment of tax to the Government. 
• All the requirements of Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017 has been fulfilled by the petitioner.
• Further, The documents required for claiming benefit of ITC, as mentioned in Rule 36 of GST Rules 2017, had been furnished by the petitioner.

3. Judgment of Delhi High Court passed in W.P.(C) 6093/2017 (On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. government of NCT of Delhi & Others)

wherein the Delhi High Court held as under:

• GST法は、必要な注意を払って販売業者と誠実に取引を行った購入業者と、そうでない業者とを区別できていない。
• 仕入税額控除（ITC）は、徴収した税金を納付しなかった販売業者に対して制限すべきであり、誠実な購入業者を罰するべきではない。
• 本件において、購入業者は条件を無視してITCを認めるべきだと主張しているわけではない。
• 購入業者はDVAT法に基づくITC請求の条件を満たしており、販売業者がDVAT法の条件を満たさなかったという理由だけでITCを否認することはできない。

5. Contention of the Respondent

被申立人は以下の通り主張した：

• 本件は、供給業者の登録が事後的に取り消されたという理由だけでITCの利益が否認されたケースではない。
• それどころか、実在しない架空の業者からの仕入れを偽装していたという理由で命令が下されている。
• したがって、実態のない仕入れに基づき、不正にITCを請求したことになる。

6. 高等裁判所による分析

高等裁判所は以下の分析および認定を行った：

a. 商品が実際に受領されていない

• ITC請求に関する条件はGST法第16条に規定されている。さらに、第16条(2)に基づき、登録事業者は商品の受領がない限り、いかなる商品の供給に関してもITCを受ける権利を有しない。
• 「商品の受領」とは、ITCを請求する者が実際に商品を受け取っていなければならないことを意味する。単に商品の受領に関する書類を作成しただけで、実際には商品を受け取っておらず、商品の取引が実態を伴わない書類上の取引に過ぎないことが立証された場合、その者はGST法2017年第16条(2)(b)に従い、ITCの利益を得る権利を有しない。
• 本件において、申立人は要件を満たしているとしてITCを請求し、認められていた。しかし、調査の結果、供給業者は実在しない架空の業者であることが判明した。
• 当該業者の住所に事務所は存在せず、倉庫やその他の施設も見当たらなかった。これらの業者は書類上にのみ存在していたようである。

b. GST登録の事後的取り消し

• 申立人が仕入れを得たと主張した時点で業者の登録は存在していたが、調査により業者自体が実在しないことが判明した。
• 実在しない業者が実際の供給を行うことはできない。
• 取引日に供給業者がGST登録されていたという理由だけで、供給業者が実在せず、実際の供給を行えなかったという事実を知りながら、当局が申立人にITCの利益を与える義務があるとは言えない。
• このような供給に対するITC請求は、当局および公的財政に対する詐欺行為に該当する。

c. 詐欺は最も厳粛な手続きさえも無効にするというのが確立された法理である。たとえ供給業者がGST登録されていたという理由で申立人にITCが認められていたとしても、実在しない業者からの仕入れを根拠に不正に享受した利益の返還を求める当局の適切な措置に対して、禁反言（エストッペル）は成立しない。

d. 実在しない業者から供給を受けたという主張は、運送業者が発行した貨物受取証（GR）の書式がバラバラであったという事実によっても裏付けられる。運送状（Bilties）に記載されたGSTINは無効であることが判明した。また、運送状に記載された連絡先番号も運送会社のものではなく、他人が使用していた。

e. これらの認定は、申立人に対して裁定当局が下した命令を裏付けるものである。控訴当局は、本件の事実関係および記録にある資料を考慮した上で、異議申し立ての対象となった命令を下している。

7. 命令

アラハバード高等裁判所は、異議申し立ての対象となった命令に違法性は認められないと判示した。