-No adverse inference to be drawn, if in e-way bill weight mentioned was more than actual found, and if, after issuance of notice and before seizure order passed, correct e-way bill was produced cancelling earlier e-way bill. Opportunity to rebut to be given, if revenue intends to rely upon fresh evidence against the assessee.
-Input Tax Credit cannot be denied in cases wherein migration could not be completed due to technical glitches and subsequently, registration was granted from retrospective date.
-Once a question has reached finality, it could not be re-considered when no appeal was preferred against the earlier assessment and revenue cannot be permitted to adopt an inconsistent stand in a subsequent assessment where the facts and position of law is identical.
-No interference required wherein order passed ex-parte as no reply was filed even though sufficient opportunity was granted and even extension was sought by the petitioner
-Seller to be examined in case wherein supply of goods challenged
-Recovery to be first affected from the seller
-ITC to be given for transactions entered by the recipient before cancellation of registration of the supplier
-In absence of documents, mere reflection of credit in GST Records electronically is not sufficient.
-Section 16 to be followed strictly, substantive liability on supplier & protective liability on recipient. Mechanism to brought in place to address the same.
-SCN can be treated as a communication under Section 42(3) intimating mismatch between the ITC claimed by recipient and tax paid by the supplier
-Supporting document can be furnished in reply to the SCN that tax has been paid
Seller to be examined
The Court observed that if the tax had not reached the kitty of the Government, then the liability may have to be eventually borne by one party, either
ITC to be given for
LGW Industries Ltd.
The writ petition was disposed of by remanding the matters to be considered afresh on the issue of their entitlement of benefit of input tax credit in
In absence of
Tvl. Ashok Trading
The Court observed that the petitioner had no documents to substantiate a valid availing of input tax credit and mere reflection of the amounts in the
Section 16 to be
The Court observed that the provisions of section 16 are to be observed strictly, such that, there is no jeopardy to the interests of the revenue. The
SCN can be treated as
It was contended by the revenue that ITC claimed by petitioner was a wrong claim because, there was a complete mismatch between the supplier