The Orissa High Court held that supplier non-existence cannot automatically imply fraud by the recipient. Independent evidence of intent is mandatory for invoking Section 74.
The Court held that input tax credit cannot be denied solely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax without examining the genuineness of transactions. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of whether the assessee discharged its burden of proof.
The Court held that denial of input tax credit cannot be sustained without clear findings that suppliers failed to pay tax. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after proper examination.
The Court set aside the GST demand as the adjudicating authority failed to consider the taxpayer’s submissions. It held that lack of reasoning invalidates the order.
Clandestine removal could not be sustained on mere assumptions or third-party statements without corroborative evidence and statutory compliance under Section 9D.
The SC refused to interfere where the High Court had quashed reassessment based on binding precedents. It held that no ground existed to reopen findings already settled by earlier rulings.
The Court quashed all notices and orders as the matter was identical to earlier decisions. It ruled that consistency with precedent requires setting aside such proceedings.
The Court held that ITC cannot be denied solely because supplier registrations were cancelled retrospectively. It ruled that absence of evidence of collusion requires fresh verification before denying credit.
The Court held that input tax credit can be claimed regardless of the month of purchase. It ruled that the amendment to Section 10(3) is clarificatory and applies retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) improperly admitted additional evidence without satisfying Rule 46A conditions or recording reasons. It emphasized that procedural compliance is mandatory and failure to follow it invalidates the relief granted.*
