Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PIYUSH AGRAWAL
Safecon Lifescience Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner Grade 2 – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri R.R.Agarwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)- II State Tax, Agra, respondent no.1 as well as the order dated 12.1.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Agra, respondent no.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in trading and manufacturing business, mainly of all kinds of medicines/ pharma products on wholesale basis. He further submits that the petitioner purchased medicines/ pharma products from M/s Unimax Pharma Chem, Purana Taluka Bhiwandi, Thane and at the time of supply it was in existence and duly registered with the GST department as well as Drug License Holder. He further submits that the transaction of purchases made by the petitioner from the Maharashtra Party for the tax period April, 2021 which was against the Tax Invoice dated 30.4.2021 and E-way bill and transport bilty of M/s Vinay Road Lines Pvt. Ltd. He further submits that the whole payments of purchases
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 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 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.
Proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot be initiated without evidence of fraud or misstatement if prior proceedings under Section 73 have been concluded.
Input tax credit claims require proof of actual tax payment by the supplier; failure to demonstrate this results in denial of credit.
The court ruled that confusion about GST application does not constitute fraud or willful misstatement needed to invoke penalties under the Goods and Services Tax Act, thus quashing the show cause no....
Non-payment of GST does not automatically imply fraud or wilful misstatement; evidence of intention to evade tax is necessary for penalties under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
Non-payment of GST does not imply fraud unless there is evidence of intent to evade tax; penalties under Section 74 can be upheld for wilful suppression of facts.
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....
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
