Back
P. B. BAJANTHRI, ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Sane Retails Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
P. B. Bajanthri, J. – In these bunch of petitions, petitioners are stated to be registered dealers. They had claimed Input Tax Credit (for short ‘ITC’) under Section 16 (2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST Act’) / Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘BGST Act’) for a particular period and their claims have been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patliputra Circle, Central Division, Patna. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the aforementioned Officer, they have availed statutory remedy of appeal before the appellate authority viz., Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Central Division, Patna. The appellate authority has affirmed the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax in each of the cases. Hence, each of the petitioners have assailed the decisions of the aforementioned authorities.
2. For the purpose of factual aspects of the matter, the lead case is CWJC No. 17914 of 2023 in the matter of M/s Utkrisht Trade Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar and Others. Brief facts of the case in M/s Utkrisht Trade Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar and Others are as under: –
| Date | Partic |
Dealers claiming input tax credit must establish genuine transactions and physical movement of goods with adequate proof; failure to do so may result in disallowance and recovery proceedings under th....
Input tax credit claims require proof of actual tax payment by the supplier; failure to demonstrate this results in denial of credit.
Legislative provisions imposing conditions on Input Tax Credit eligibility based on supplier compliance are found iniquitous; bona fide purchasers must not be unduly penalized for supplier defaults.
The burden of proof lies with the dealer to establish the genuineness of transactions and actual movement of goods for Input Tax Credit claims under GST.
Purchasing dealers claiming ITC must prove genuine transactions and actual physical movement beyond invoices or payment details under Section 70 of KVAT Act, 2003.
A registered person is not entitled to input tax credit if the claimed supplies are from non-existent firms, regardless of the validity of the supplier's GST registration at the time of transaction.
The burden of proof lies on the recipient to establish the legitimacy of Input Tax Credit claims, necessitating evidence of actual goods received, which failed in this case.
The court held that input tax credit cannot be denied based on the seller's retrospective registration cancellation when the transaction occurred while the seller was registered.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
