Held - We have taken note of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that sub-rule (4) of Rule 36 of the CGST Rules became constitutionally valid with the enforcement of Section 16(2)(aa) of the CGST Act, i.e. from 01.01.2022 but cannot be termed as valid for the period prior to that, but for rejection only.

Sub-section (1) of Section 164 of the CGST Act.....

Held: We dispose of this Special Leave Petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner herein to file a review petition before the High Court bringing to the notice of the High Court, the documents which were filed and on record before the High Court and also by bringing on record additional documents.  Till such time, the review petition is not disposed of by the High Court, the
impugned judgment shall not.....

Held- We have considered the submissions of the counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and are of the view that Circular No.183/15/2022- GST would apply in the present case. Furthermore, the judgment in the case of M/s. Santosh Kumar (supra) is on similar factual matrix and we agree with the said judgment.

In light of the above, the impugned order dated December 22, 202.....

Held: Every registered dealer can claim the benefit of input tax credit only on fulfilment of certain conditions as enumerated under the Act. Section 16 (2) further provides that no registered dealer shall be entitled to the credit of any input tax in respect of any supply of goods or services or both to him unless the conditions mentioned therein is fulfilled. In other words, Section 16 sp.....

Held - Having gone through the above referred judgments, we are of the view that the controversy raised in this batch of writ petitions is squarely covered by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of On Quest Merchandising India Private Limited (supra). Hence, the show cause notices impugned in the present writ petitions and the consequential orders are set aside. Howe.....

Held - Undisputedly, the petitioner had fulfilled the requirements and, therefore, the input tax credit was claimed and was granted to him. However, when an enquiry was conducted by the Special Investigation Branch subsequently, it came to light that the firms from which the petitioner claimed to have received inward supplies, were non-existent and bogus. Neither the firms were found on the addresses, claimed by th.....