The Court held that cancellation of GST registration for procedural non-compliance should not permanently deprive a taxpayer of business operations when the defaults can be remedied through statutory compliance.
The Tribunal admitted lenders’ tax returns and bank statements and remanded the Section 68 issue for fresh examination. The matter was sent back for verification of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness.
The Tribunal held that property investment funded through documented foreign remittances from the assessee’s husband could not be treated as unexplained. Bank records and remittance confirmations established the complete source of funds.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions under Sections 68 and 69C could not be sustained where the Revenue relied only on generalized investigation findings. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the assessee to any accommodation entry arrangement and deleted both additions.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee had fully explained the source of investment through bank records showing direct payment by her father. The addition under Section 69 was deleted as unsupported by evidence.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under Section 14A must be computed only with reference to investments that actually yielded exempt income. The Tribunal also deleted interest disallowance after finding that the assessee’s interest-free funds exceeded its investments.
The Supreme Court declined immediate intervention but expressly left open the challenge to the validity of Section 16(2) of the CGST Act. The key takeaway is that constitutional questions relating to denial of ITC due to supplier default remain unresolved.
The article explains how ITC eligibility is linked to vendor compliance under GST. It highlights key risks such as return filing defaults, invoice mismatches, and supplier non-compliance that can lead to ITC denial.
The ITAT held that FTC cannot be denied solely because Form No. 67 was filed after the due date. It ruled that the filing requirement is procedural and does not extinguish the taxpayer’s substantive right to foreign tax credit.
CESTAT held that where the value of goods sent for job work had already been considered for credit reversal purposes, including it again would amount to impermissible double counting.
