Shanti Kiran India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade & Tax Department
Facts :
The appellant, a registered dealer, purchased goods from registered selling dealers against valid tax invoices and claimed input tax credit. The VAT authorities disallowed ITC on the ground that selling dealers had deposited disproportionately low tax and their registrations were later cancelled. The assessment orders, objection orders, and Tribunal upheld denial of ITC and imposed tax, interest, and penalty. The appellant challenged these findings before the High Court.
Court Decision:
The High Court held that denial of ITC was not justified in the absence of any statutory provision (during the relevant period) requiring the purchasing dealer to ensure that the selling dealer deposited tax. It held that Section 9(2) did not contain such a condition prior to insertion of clause (g), and the Tribunal’s interpretation was erroneous. The Court allowed the appeals and directed grant of input tax credit to the appellant after verification.
Cases Referred by Court:
• State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Trading Company
• Althaf Shoes Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (CT)
• V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
• Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar
• Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine v. State of Bihar
• R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills
• Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
• George Oakes (Private) Ltd. v. State of Madras
• Commissioner of Central Excise v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal
• State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh
• J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan
Other Case Law
Subh Karan Yadav v. Income Tax Officer, Rewari, Haryana
Section 54 Exemption Where New Residential Property Was Purchased in Wife’s Name.
BACKGROUNDThe assessee had sold a residential property and claimed exemption und...
Read MoreUmicore Autocat India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Refusal to transfer unutilised CGST and IGST credit on amalgamation, solely on the ground that the transferor and transferee were registered in different States. At issue: whether Section 18(3) and Rule 41 impose any such same-State condition at all.
Background. Pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation approved by the NCLT...
Read MoreVeremax Technologie Services Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
Show Cause Notice – Clubbing of multiple financial years in a single show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 – validity of consolidated show cause notice.
Facts:The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 03.05.2024 and the O...
Read More