9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, party ledger for the period from 1st April, 2017 to 31st March, 2018, bank statements and copy of the GSTR- 2A. Admittedly, in this case the petitioner no.1 s supplier had filed returns for the relevant tax period. It is also noticed that the relevant e waybills had also been disclosed by the petitioner no.1 which, inter alia, include the name of the transporter. Though the petitioner no. 1 had discharged its initial burden of proof, the appellate authority had, by glossing over the same without indicating the documents required to be disclosed by the petitioner no. 1, arrived at a finding that the petitioner no. 1 is not eligible for ITC. In this context, it may be noted that the finding returned by the appellate authority that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid Act ). 2. Shorn of unnecessary details the facts are that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner no. 1 for availing and utilizing Input Tax Credit (in short ITC ) amounting to Rs.18,79,978/- against the claimed supply received from Dhiraj Kumar Sharma, Prakash Prasad, Arnab Das and Gopal Das (hereinafter referred to as suppliers ) for the period from September 2017 to June 2020. According to the respondents the ITC was found to be inadmissible, since, the registration of the said suppliers had been cancelled from 01.07.2017, 04.07.2019, 14.07.2019 and 30.10.2019 respectively. The aforesaid show-cause ultimately culminated in an adjudication order, passed under Section 73(9) of the said Act on 13th April, 2022. 3. Being aggriev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of this Court to the GSTR-2A appearing at page 139 of the writ petition it is submitted that the petitioner no.1 s supplier M/s D. S. Bitumix which is the sole proprietorship firm of Dhiraj Kumar Sharma had duly filed the returns and such fact would corroborate from page 139 of the writ petition. Ms. Roy Chowdhury has also drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant bank statements and the e-way bills. The e way bills would reflect the name and particulars of the transporter. By referring to Rule 139 of the WBGST/CGST Rules,2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules ) it is submitted that the e way bills contain all relevant information in relation to supply, inter alia, including the particulars of the conveyance through which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authority is based on no evidence and the same is perverse and should be set aside and the petitioner no.1 should be given the benefit of ITC for the relevant period. 8. Mr. Siddiqui, learned advocate appearing for the respondents at the very outset by drawing attention of this Court to Section 155 of the said Act submits that in the event any person claims to be eligible for ITC, the burden of proof of such claim lies on such person. Since, the petitioner no. 1 had failed to discharge its burden by producing necessary documents, ITC had been denied. By placing before this Court, the order dated 17th July 2023, it is submitted that in the instant case the petitioner no. 1 had failed to prove that the petitioner no. 1 had actually received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k statements and copy of the GSTR- 2A. Admittedly, in this case the petitioner no.1 s supplier had filed returns for the relevant tax period. It is also noticed that the relevant e waybills had also been disclosed by the petitioner no.1 which, inter alia, include the name of the transporter. 11. The bank statement in support of the transactions claimed by the petitioner no. 1 had also been disclosed. The appellate authority, however, by glossing over the same concluded that the petitioner no. 1 having failed to produce transport and other documents, and in absence thereof, the petitioner no.1 was ineligible for ITC. The appellate authority had also recorded in its order that the petitioner no.1 could not produce documents to establish that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and specified as to what other documents the petitioner no.1 was required to be disclosed to establish the genuinity of the transaction. Although, in page 198 of instant writ petition it appears that the appellate authority had recorded that the petitioner no. 1 could not establish that the goods had been moved and had failed to produce and substantiate the same by disclosure of documents like loading expenses, transportation expenses, unloading expenses and other vouchers, I am of the view that unless, the respondents are able to overcome the initial discharge of burden of proof by the petitioner no.1, by impeaching the documents disclosed by the petitioner no.1 which admittedly had not been challenged by the respondents, the proper offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
