Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

Regarding GSTIN Cancelled suo-moto.

JIGNESH SITAPARA

Dear Experts,

My client has received demand notice (DRC7) Rs. 18 lacs due to his supplier GST number cancelled under suo-moto. The suo-moto date after the invoice date. (Invoices received in April 2018 and suo-moto cancelled 01-09-2022). Now, all condition fulfilled all conditioned prescribed under Section 16 of SGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. But, supplier not generated eway bills at the time of supply. 

So, please guide me how file appeal without eway bill ?

GSTIN cancellation suo-moto and missing eway bill leading to recipient demand: contesting input tax credit and appeal options Recipient faced a tax demand after a suppliers GSTIN was suo-moto cancelled post-supply where invoices otherwise met statutory input tax credit conditions; absence of e-way bill raises a compliance defect that can attract denial or disallowance of input tax credit as a procedural consequence. The operative legal focus is on whether documentary and transactional evidence (invoices, proof of payment, transport documents other than e-way bill, reconciliation of returns) establish that statutory conditions for credit were satisfied, and the effect is that the recipient must adduce such evidence to rebut the demand and preserve rights to credit despite the suppliers GSTIN cancellation. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Sadanand Bulbule at 7:23 PM

The core of your argument is that the retrospective cancellation of a suppliers registration (in 2022) cannot invalidate a bona fide transaction from 2018, as the "doctrine of impossibility" prevents a buyer from predicting a suppliers future default. While the absence of an E-way bill is a procedural lapse, it is not fatal to the ITC claim if you can substantiate the physical movement of goods through secondary evidence like Lorry Receipts, weighbridge slips, and bank-verified freight payments.

Rely on judicial precedents which affirm that a genuine recipient should not be penalized for the suppliers later non-compliance, provided the tax was paid and the goods were received at the time of the invoice.

+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues