Suncraft Energy Private Limited & Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors.
Facts
The appellant availed Input Tax Credit on purchases made from a supplier and paid the tax amount along with the value of goods/services. The department issued notices alleging mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B and non-reflection of supplier invoices in GSTR-1. A demand order under Section 73(10) was passed reversing ITC along with interest and penalty. The writ petition was disposed of directing the appellant to file a statutory appeal, which led to the present intra-court appeal.
Court Decision:
The High Court set aside the demand order and held that reversal of ITC was not justified without first taking action against the selling dealer. The Court held that when the purchasing dealer has fulfilled conditions under Section 16(2), including possession of invoice, receipt of goods/services, and payment of tax, ITC cannot be denied merely due to non-reflection in GSTR forms. It was further held that proceedings against the purchaser can arise only in exceptional circumstances such as fraud, collusion, or where the supplier is non-existent or without assets.
Cases Referred by Court:
• Union of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd.
• Arise India Limited v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, Delhi
• Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Limited (SLP dismissed)
Other Case Law
Manoja Kumar Nayak vs Commissioner,
Validity of initiation of proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and levy of tax, interest under Section 50, and penalty — where ITC availed from an alleged non-existent supplier had already been voluntarily reversed by the taxpayer prior to
BACKGROUNDThe petitioner, Manoja Kumar Nayak (GSTIN: 21AANPN1032G2Z6), engaged i...
Read MoreMayank Bansal vs The Union of India & Ors.
Whether penalty under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act can be imposed on the partners of a firm (the taxable person), and whether it can apply to periods prior to 01.01.2021, the date Section 122(1A) came into force.
BACKGROUNDThe petitioners are partners of M/s Quantum Infratech, a partnership f...
Read MoreRam Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement
Validity of Arrest under Section 19 read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Whether non-supply of the ECIR vitiates the arrest and whether the mandatory requirements of Section 19 were duly complied with by the Enfor
Facts of the Case:-* ED registered an ECIR against Ram Kishor Arora in con...
Read More