Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Solvi Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner Grade – Respondent
1. Since the similar issues are involved in aforesaid writ petitions, the same are being decided together by this common judgment.
2. For convenience, the facts of the Writ Tax No.1287 of 2024 is being delineated here-in-below:
3. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri RS. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as Sri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank.
4. By means of this writ petition, the following prayer has been made:-
“I. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the respondent no.1 in Appeal No.GST – AD091222030324L/2022 F.Y. 2018-19, under the provisions of Section 74 of the U.P.G.S.T./C.G.S.T. Act (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).
II. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.09.2022 passed/issued by the respondent no.2 (Annexure no.4 to the writ petition).
III. ………..
IV. ………...”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered dealer, which is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of scr
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.
Input tax credit claims require proof of actual tax payment by the supplier; failure to demonstrate this results in denial of credit.
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....
Administrative actions affecting business registrations must align with statutory procedures and provide due process, including valid reasoning for cancellations under GST law.
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.
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.
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.
The court quashed the cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns, emphasizing consistency in judicial precedents and due process for compliance obligations.
Court quashed cancellation of GST registration, affirming that procedural errors by the petitioner did not warrant such measures, and directed compliance with return filing.
GST registration cancellation quashed subject to compliance with tax payment, return filing, and ITC scrutiny conditions.
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
