Input tax credit and provisional registration number: denial set aside and claim remitted for fresh consideration.

Input tax credit could not be denied merely because the corresponding tax payment was reflected against a provisional registration number rather than the later permanent registration number, where that factual contention had not been considered in the impugned order. The Court indicated that if payment was made against the provisional registration granted to the taxpayer, the credit claim required fresh examination and could not be rejected on that ground alone. The denial was therefore set aside to the extent it rested on section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, and the claim was remitted for reconsideration by the authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether denial of input tax credit on the ground that the corresponding tax payment was reflected against the petitioner's provisional registration number, and not the permanent registration number, warranted interference and fresh consideration.

Analysis: The material placed before the Court indicated that the petitioner's contention regarding payments having been made against the provisional registration number had not been considered in the impugned order. The Court held that if the payments for which input tax credit was claimed were in fact made against the provisional registration granted to the petitioner, there was no reason for the credit to be denied merely because the permanent registration number had later been issued. The matter therefore required reconsideration by the authority in the light of this contention.

Conclusion: The denial of input tax credit was set aside to the extent it rested on Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the petitioner's claim was directed to be reconsidered afresh by the first respondent.

---