Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.SARAVANAN
Greenwood Training Company, Represented By Its Senior Manager (Accounts) And Its Authorised Signatory – Appellant
Versus
Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) – Respondent
ORDER :
C. SARAVANAN, J.
Mr.C.Harsharaj, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the Respondent.
2. These Writ Petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.
3. In these Writ Petitions, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Orders of the 1st Respondent Appellate Authority dated 29.08.2025 which have accompanied summary of the order in Form GST APL - 04 dated 30.09.2025 for the respective tax periods 2017 – 2018 to 2020 - 2021.
4. By the impugned order, the Petitioner’s appeal against impugned orders passed under Section 122(1)(ii) all dated 24.03.2021 have been rejected.
5. The 2nd Respondent / Original Authority passed under Section 122(1)(ii) all dated 24.03.2021 pursuant to an inspection held on 12.09.2020 at the premises of the Petitioner. Thereafter, notices were issued to the Petitioner for the respective tax periods in Form GST – DRC – 01 which called upon the Petitioner to furnish certain documents which were partly furnished. These documents were also produced before the 1st Respondent / Appellate Authority who has found no reasons to int
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....
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....
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 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.
Input Tax Credit claims cannot be denied without adequate evidence and consideration of the principles of natural justice as established in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.
The court established that provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act requires tangible evidence of necessity to protect government revenue, and such powers must be exercised with cautio....
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
