GST – Calcutta High Court: At the time of transaction, the name of the supplier was available with government records, hence ITC is allowed irrespective of the retrospective cancellation of registration– Writ petition allowed [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
14-Jun-2023 20:04:36
Order Date – 06 June 2023
Parties: M/s. Gargo Traders Vs The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (State Tax) & Ors.
Facts –
- The Petitioner, M/s. Gargo Traders, claimed credit of input tax against supply made from a supplier.
- The department rejected the claim as it found that the supplier from whom the petitioner claimed to have purchased the goods in question are all fake and non-existing and the bank accounts open by the supplier is on the basis of fake document and the claim of the petitioner of Input Tax Credit are not supported by any relevant document also the petitioner has not verified the genuineness and identity of the supplier before entering in to the transaction.
Issue –
- Whether the officer had correctly rejected the rectification application?
Order –
- The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that at the time of transaction, the name of the supplier as registered taxable person was already available with the Government record and the petitioner has paid the amount of purchased articles as well as tax on the same through bank and not in cash.
- It is not the case of the respondents that there is a collusion between the petitioner and supplier with regard to the transaction. Further observed that without proper verification, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the petitioner in compliance of any obligation required under the statute before entering into the transactions in question.
- The respondent authorities only taking into consideration of the cancellation of registration of the supplier with retrospective effect have rejected the claim of the petitioner without considering the documents relied by the petitioner. The unreported judgment passed in the case of M/s Law Industries Limited & Ors. is squarely applicable in the present case.
- In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside. The respondent no. 1 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner afresh by taking into consideration of the documents which the petitioner intends to rely in support of his claim.
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