9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he strength of invoices of the trader/supplier namely M/s.Kiran Distributors, why is not having any business that was reportedly engaged in passing on ineligible input tax credit to various/numerous tax payers including the petitioner. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajnandini Metal Limited case [ 2022 (6) TMI 279 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] is distinguishable in the facts of the present case as the intimation issued to the petitioner categorically states that the Office of the respondents has received report that the trader/supplier namely M/s.Kiran Distributors was non-existing entity and had not conducted any business activity at the address for which, registration was obtained and found to have passed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the Input Tax Credit is incorrect as the petitioner is being denied the utilization of input tax credit availed on the purchases made from various buyers for discharging tax liability. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajnandini Metal Limited Vs. Union of India , [2022] 140 taxmann.com 325 (Punjab and Haryana). 7. A specific reference was made to Paragraph 11 from the said decision, which reads as under:- 11. The impugned order in the present case when tested on the touchstone of the provision contained in rule 86A and the law referred to herein above, we find that the reason to invoke the power conferred under rule 86A of CGST Rules a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajnandini Metal Limited case (referred to supra) is distinguishable in the facts of the present case as the intimation issued to the petitioner categorically states that the Office of the respondents has received report that the trader/supplier namely M/s.Kiran Distributors was non-existing entity and had not conducted any business activity at the address for which, registration was obtained and found to have passed on ineligible input tax credit to numerous tax payers. 10. Considering the same, I do not find any merits to interfere with the impugned order. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Appellate Authority. Meanwhile, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
