GST – Allahabad High Court: Input tax credit cannot be denied only due to the reason that registration of supplier was cancelled without ascertaining the date of cancellation – As per Sections 16 and 74 of, it is clear that the Legislature has provided the benefit of input tax credit to those assessee who had supplied goods or services and are registered dealers – Matter remanded back [Order attached]

Your free trial / membership plan is expired.
Kindly subscribe to get complete access to indirect tax updates and issue wise cases
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates and download copy of case laws/ notification/ circular etc.
Be a part of our WhatsApp group and read real time indirect tax updates
Access to ready case laws of General Issues and Industry Wide Issues under GST
Access to relevant provisions of law / circular in respect to the issues, along with trail of their amendments
Write your GST query to us for evaluation
Subscription Charges:*
Indirect tax updates -
6 months @299 / 1 Year @499 only
Indirect tax updates + Issue wise cases -
6 months @1199 / 1 Year @1999 only
*Plus applicable GST
Admin
10-Dec-2022 14:46:22
Order date – 6 December 2022
Key Pointers –
- The Petitioner, M/S Ashish Trading Company is a proprietorship firm and engaged in a business of purchasing and selling empty tin boxes.
- A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 09.12.2019 under Section 74 of the Act. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice online. The reply submitted by the petitioner was rejected.
- A specific ground was taken that all the GST was deposited timely and all the relevant documents were placed before the authorities and the claim of ITC was wrongly cancelled by the Assessing Authority.
- The Hon’ble High Court finds that from reading of both the Sections 16 and 74 of the Act of 2017, it is clear that the Legislature has provided the benefit of input tax credit to those assessee who had supplied goods or services and are registered dealers and further on the requirement being fulfilled as per the provisions can make claim.
- Section 74 puts embargo and places a restriction and gives a handle to the authorities that in case of availing the benefit wrongfully or by reasons of fraud or willful mis-statement of the fact a notice is issued to the assessee and upon adjudication amount is recovered and ITC claimed is reversed.
- The Court finds that finding recorded by the first Appellate Authority is cryptic as it only states in its order that the registration of the supplier was cancelled, but no date of cancellation has been mentioned so as to demonstrate whether transaction took place prior to cancellation or subsequently. Moreover, the first Appellate Authority had discarded the claim of ITC on the ground that no records of payment of loading and unloading of goods were brought before it.
- The Court finds that the finding recorded by the first Appellate Authority cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded to the first Appellate Authority to record specific finding as to when the registration of supplier i.e. M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises, Agra was cancelled.
- The writ petition allowed partly.
Related Post
Post Category
Your free trial/ membership plan has expired. Kindly subscribe to get complete access of tax news updates.
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates
Access to the Order Copy of the case law/ Notification/ Circular etc
Be a part of our Whatsapp group and read real time tax updates
Access to ready case laws/ circulars on general and industry-wide issues under GST
Submit your GST issues to us for evaluation