TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, the petitioner with due diligence verified the genuineness and identity of the supplier and name of the supplier as registered taxable person was available at the Government Portal showing its registration as valid and existing at the time of transaction - Admittedly at the time of transaction, the name of the supplier as registered taxable person was already available with the Government record and the petitioner has paid the amount of purchased articles as well as tax on the same through bank and not in cash. This Court finds that without proper verification, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the petitioner in compliance of any obligation required under the statute before entering into the transactions i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ternational Transport Corporation for an amount of Rs. 1,73,073.00/-. The petitioner has made payment to Global Bitumen from the account of the petitioner through bank. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order issued by the respondent authorities for not allowing the petitioner, who is the purchaser of goods in question and refusing to grant the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on purchase from supplier and also asking the petitioner to pay penalty and interest under the relevant provisions of GST Act. 4. The case of the respondents that on inquiry, they came to know that the supplier from whom the petitioner claimed to have purchased the goods in question are all fake and non-existing and the bank accounts open by the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia Ors.) dated 13th December, 2021 and the Judgment reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1412 (Balaji Exim vs- Commissioner, CGST Ors.) and submitted that the allegation of fake credit availed by Global Bitumen cannot be a ground for rejecting the petitioner s refund application unless it is established that the petitioner has not received the goods or paid for them. 9. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the transaction relied by the petitioner with Global Bitumen is of November, 2018 but the authorities have cancelled the registration of the supplier of the petitioner with effect from 13.10.2018 and the said cancellation has been accepted by the supplier. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntering into the transactions in question. 16. The respondent authorities only taking into consideration of the cancellation of registration of the supplier with retrospective effect have rejected the claim of the petitioner without considering the documents relied by the petitioner. 17. The unreported judgment passed in the case of M/s Lgw Industries Limited Ors. (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. 18. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside. The respondent no. 1 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner afresh by taking into consideration of the documents which the petitioner intends to rely in support of his claim. 19. The respondent no. 1 shall dispose of the claim of the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
