https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759098 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. en-us Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 May 2025 21:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759098 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. Case-Laws GST Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759098