Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Devi Traders, Represented by its Proprietor – Appellant
Versus
State Tax Officer (Inspection) 5 – Respondent
ORDER :
C.Saravanan, J.
In these Writ Petitions, the respective petitioners have challenged the Impugned Assessment Orders passed on the dates mentioned below pursuant to Remand Orders passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigations. The details of the Writ Petitions filed by the respective petitioners are as under:-
| Sl. No | W.P.(MD) No. | Petitioner | Assessment Year | Date of Impugned Order | Tax * (In Rs.) | Penalty * (In Rs.) | Interest (In Rs.) |
| 1 | 22371/23 | Devi Traders | 2017-18 | 25.5.23 | 8179930 | 8179930 | - |
| 2 | 22372/23 | Devi Traders | 2018-19 | 25.5.23 | 136906 | 136906 | - |
| 3 | 22933/23 | Thapasi Rubbers | 2017-18 | 24.5.23 | 2035004 | 1017502 | - |
| 4 | 22934/23 | Thapasi Rubbers | 2018-19 | 24.5.23 | 3906326 | 1953163 | - |
| 5 | 22935/23 | Thapasi Rubbers | 2019-20 | 24.5.23 | 561126 | 280564 | - |
| 6 | 22955/23 | J.K.Global Traders | 2017-18 | 2.12.22 | 649750 | 649750 | - |
| 7 | 22956/23 | J.K.Global Traders | 2018-19 | 2.12.22 | 267000 | 267000 | - |
| 8 | 22957/23 | J.K.Global Traders | 2019-20 | 30.12.22 | 1257212 | 1257212 | - |
| 9 | 23473/23 | Alban Rubbers | 2017-18 | 10.5.23 | 12895762 | 12895762 | 12451179 |
| 10 | 23474/23 | Alban Rubbers | 2018-19 | 10.5.23 | 16669208 | 16669208 | 13498209 |
| 11 | 23475/23 | Alban Rubbers | 2019-20 | 10.5.23 | 6427918 | 6427918 | 4168042 |
| 12 | 23476/23 | Sree Maruthi Traders | 2017-18 | 31.5.23 | 2753654 | 2779596 | - |
| 13 | 23477/23 | Sree Maruthi Traders | 2018-19 | 31.5.23 | 5957218 | 5957218 | - |
| 14 | 23478/23 | Sree Maruthi Traders | 2019-20 | 31.5 | |||
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.
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....
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.
Input Tax Credit requires valid documentation proving the physical movement of goods; the burden of proof lies with the assessee to substantiate claims, and penalties are subject to careful assessmen....
The taxpayer must substantiate claims for input tax credit with adequate proof of genuine transactions; failure to do so justifies the cancellation of GST registration.
Tax authorities must provide substantial evidence of fraud or suppression of facts before imposing penalties under Sections 74 and 50, especially when input tax credit has already been reversed volun....
Purchasing dealers claiming ITC must prove genuine transactions and actual physical movement beyond invoices or payment details under Section 70 of KVAT Act, 2003.
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish the genuineness of documents and actual movement of goods; failure to do so justifies seizure under the IGST/CGST Act.
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
