Trendships Online Services Private Limited Vs Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P. At Lucknow And Another (Allahabad High Court)
The petitioner had purchased goods from one of the supplier who was a registered dealer at the time of purchase. The said goods were transported by own car of the petitioner. The payment towards said supply was made through RTGS and proof of the same was presented to support the availment of ITC.
Petitioner has filed the captioned petition against the Order under Section 74 of CGST Act, confirming demand of tax along with interest and penalty on the ground that ITC corresponding to purchase made from the supplier whose registration is cancelled is ineligible since tax has not been deposited by supplier.
In order to support its argument, petitioner contended that the supplier was registered at the time of transaction and payment towards such transaction is made through banking channel. Also, petitioner relied upon following judicial precedents among others:
- Allahabad High Court in case of M/s Solvi Enterprises V/s Additional Commissioner Grade II and another
- Calcutta High Court in case of M/s Suncraft Energy PrivateLimited and another vs. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax
- Madras High Court in case of M/s D.Y. Beathel Enterprises vs. State tax officer
- Madras High Court in case of M/s Pinstar Automotive India Pvt.Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner
- Calcutta High Court in case of M/s LGW Industries Limited & others Vs Union of India & others
Court’s view:
