Onus is on Assessee to prove movement of goods & services under GST

Roshan Sharma Vs Assistant Commissioner of Revenue (Calcutta High Court)

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Roshan Sharma v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, West Bengal & Ors. (M.A.T. 854 of 2024 dated May 07, 2024) set aside the Adjudication Order affirming tax demand, interest, and penalty proposed in the Show Cause Notice. The matter was remanded back because the Assessee had not been given an effective opportunity to rebut allegations, which had been made against the supplier and transporter from whom the statement was obtained.

Facts:

Roshan Sharma (“the Appellant”) stated that the registration of selling dealer’s was cancelled with retrospective effect and on the date on which the transactions were done by the Appellant, the registration of the selling dealer was valid. The Appellant failed to prove that there was a movement of goods.

Therefore, a Show Cause Notice dated November 03, 2024 (“the SCN”) was issued to the Appellant demanding INR 2,82,32,394/- along with interest and penalty. Subsequently, an Adjudication Order dated February 01, 2024 (“the Impugned Order”) was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax (“the Adjudicating Authority”) confirming the demand raised in the SCN.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.