https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779263 HC held that initiation of proceedings under s.74 GST against the petitioner was unjustified where the petitioner had filed and paid taxes via GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B; subsequent cancellation of the supplier's registration did not permit drawing adverse inference against the petitioner. The Court found authorities should have verified the supplier's existence at the time of transactions rather than act on borrowed information, and noted no allegation that transport vehicle was unregistered. The impugned orders were quashed and the petition allowed. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:12:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779263 HC held that initiation of proceedings under s.74 GST against the petitioner was unjustified where the petitioner had filed and paid taxes via GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B; subsequent cancellation of the supplier's registration did not permit drawing adverse inference against the petitioner. The Court found authorities should have verified the supplier's existence at the time of transactions rather than act on borrowed information, and noted no allegation that transport vehicle was unregistered. The impugned orders were quashed and the petition allowed. Case-Laws GST Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779263