Back
PIYUSH AGRAWAL
Shiv Trading – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Piyush Agrawal, J.
Heard Shri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondent.
2. The instant Writ Tax is being entertained in view of the fact that no GST Tribunal has been constituted in the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to the notification of the Central Government bearing number CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14.09.2023.
3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeals - 1st ), Muzaffarnagar by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant proceedings under section 74 of the GST Act have wrongly been initiated against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is a registered proprietorship firm and engaged in the business of purchase and sale of iron machinery parts and hardware. In its normal course of business, the petitioner made purchase during the period 2018-19 from one M/s Krishna Trading Company, Mathura and due tax invoice, payments, etc. were made through banking channel and thereafter, Input Tax Credit (ITC) was availed. He further submit
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.
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.
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 cannot be denied without clear evidence of fraud or misstatement; cancellation of supplier registration does not automatically invalidate the purchaser's claims.
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 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.
For proceedings under section 129 of the UPGST Act, there must be intent to evade tax established; a mere technical breach does not warrant penalties.
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
