Commissioner of Trade and Tax, Delhi v. Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd.
Facts
The issue before the Court was whether purchasing dealers who paid tax to registered selling dealers are entitled to Input Tax Credit even if the selling dealers failed to deposit the tax with the Government. The selling dealers were registered at the time of transactions but later defaulted and their registrations were cancelled. The Delhi High Court held that the purchasing dealers were bona fide and entitled to ITC. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision. It held that where transactions and invoices are genuine and the selling dealer was registered at the time of transaction, ITC cannot be denied to bona fide purchasing dealers. The Court found no reason to interfere with the grant of ITC after due verification.
Cases Referred by Court:
• On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi
• Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd.
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, M/s. Manoja Kumar Nayak (GSTIN: 21AANPN1032G2Z6), enga...
Read MoreMilroc Good Earth Developers vs Union of India & Ors.
Show Cause Notice – Clubbing of multiple financial years in a single show cause notice under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 – validity of consolidated show cause notice for different tax periods.
Facts:The petitioner, a developer engaged in construction projects, challenged t...
Read MoreShanti Kiran India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade & Tax Department
Denial of Input Tax Credit to purchasing dealer due to non-payment of tax by selling dealer under DVAT (Section involved: Section 9(1) and Section 9(2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004)
Facts :The appellant, a registered dealer, purchased goods from registered selli...
Read More