https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773678 The HC dismissed the petition challenging cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2) of CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner failed to prove genuineness of Input Tax Credit claims despite undertaking to produce invoices, bank statements, and e-way bills. Physical verification revealed major suppliers were non-existent at declared addresses. The court held that cancellation was justified under multiple grounds including Section 29(2)(a) and Rule 21, not limited to fraud under Section 29(2)(e). The burden of proof lies on dealers claiming ITC, and mere assertions without documentary evidence are insufficient. The court found no perversity in authorities' factual findings regarding bogus transactions and affirmed the cancellation. en-us Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:35:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773678 The HC dismissed the petition challenging cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2) of CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner failed to prove genuineness of Input Tax Credit claims despite undertaking to produce invoices, bank statements, and e-way bills. Physical verification revealed major suppliers were non-existent at declared addresses. The court held that cancellation was justified under multiple grounds including Section 29(2)(a) and Rule 21, not limited to fraud under Section 29(2)(e). The burden of proof lies on dealers claiming ITC, and mere assertions without documentary evidence are insufficient. The court found no perversity in authorities' factual findings regarding bogus transactions and affirmed the cancellation. Case-Laws GST Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773678