Savitri Industries v. Chief Commissioner of CT & GST
Background.
By an order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 25.02.2025 under Section 74, a demand of Rs. 13,63,646 comprising tax of Rs. 4,82,531, interest of Rs. 3,98,584 and penalty of Rs. 4,82,531 was raised for the tax periods April 2019 to March 2020, on disallowance of input tax credit availed on transactions with M/s KVR Industries Limited, that supplier not having discharged its tax liability, Section 16(2)(c) being invoked. An earlier proceeding under Section 73 had been dropped as proceedings under Section 74 had already been initiated.
Observations of the Court.
The petitioner contended that the credit was on tax actually paid to the supplier and reflected in FORM GSTR-2A, and that fastening the supplier’s default on the recipient merely because the supplier had not filed returns for August to November 2019 amounts to requiring the recipient to discharge the supplier’s liability, resulting in double taxation prohibited in law.
The department pointed to a reasoned order passed after opportunity of hearing and after examination and verification of the purchase register, waybill details, payment details, goods transport details and the credit register against proof of deposit by the supplier, and to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, the vires of no provision being in question.
Final verdict.
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it, leaving the petitioner at liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under the GST Act, and making it clear that the facts narrated were not to be treated as an expression of opinion touching the merits of the matter.
Other Case Law
Shilpa Medicare Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Transfer of a research and development unit between two units of the same company across two States — held exempt by the Advance Ruling Authority but a taxable supply of goods with no transferable credit by the Appellate Authority. At issue: the reach o
Background. The petitioner transferred its research and development u...
Read MorePrakash Medical Stores v. Union of India & Ors.
Interpretation of limitation under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 read with Section 161 and applicability of principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Issue of exclusion of time spent in rectification proceedings and limitation for fili
Facts:The petitioner challenged an appellate order dismissing its appeal as time...
Read MoreCommissioner of Central Excise vs. Saakeen Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Whether clandestine/illicit removal of excisable goods can be established and duty demand sustained solely on the basis of retracted confessional statements, in the absence of corroborating positive evidence such as excess raw material purchase, shortage
BACKGROUNDThe assessee, a manufacturer of CTD/Round bars, was subjected to simul...
Read More