Case Law Details
Ajay Kumar Jindal Vs Superintendent (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that denial of refund of accumulated ITC on the ground that information regarding transfer of business and other returns to establish the transfer of stocks and capital goods not submitted is unacceptable.
Facts- Petitioner earlier functioned as sole proprietor, however, later formed a partnership firm. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for refund of the amount lying in his Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL) on 27.09.2021, which was allowed by an order dated 25.11.2021. Thereafter, on 12.11.2021, the petitioner filed an application for refund of the accumulated ITC of ₹24,91,347/-(₹3,07,643 as Central Tax and ₹21,83,704 as State Tax) for the period April, 2020 to March, 2021. The petitioner claims that the said ITC was accumulated due to inverted tax structure and was liable to be refunded.
On 04.01.2022, respondent issued show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why its application for refund of ITC should not be rejected based on several issues. Further, another show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why its GST registration should not be cancelled.
Thereafter, on 14.01.2022, respondent no.1 issued an order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration on the ground that the petitioner was non-existent at the principal place of business. It is material to note that the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled retrospectively, with effect from 02.07.2017, that is, from the date on which the registration was granted.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
