https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444417 A GST transaction cannot be retrospectively recharacterised as an inter-State supply merely because the parties later contend that IGST should have been charged; where the goods were delivered and received in Jharkhand and there was no proof of movement to Bihar, no revised invoice could be compelled and the original CGST and SGST treatment stood. Input tax credit was also unavailable because section 16(4) of the Bihar GST Act allows credit only within the prescribed statutory period linked to the relevant returns, and that period had expired on the facts. The writ challenge therefore failed on both merits and limitation. en-us Fri, 06 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Apr 2025 14:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444417 A GST transaction cannot be retrospectively recharacterised as an inter-State supply merely because the parties later contend that IGST should have been charged; where the goods were delivered and received in Jharkhand and there was no proof of movement to Bihar, no revised invoice could be compelled and the original CGST and SGST treatment stood. Input tax credit was also unavailable because section 16(4) of the Bihar GST Act allows credit only within the prescribed statutory period linked to the relevant returns, and that period had expired on the facts. The writ challenge therefore failed on both merits and limitation. Case-Laws GST Fri, 06 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444417