https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782901 HC quashed the impugned orders issued under Section 74 of the GST Act against the purchasing dealer and allowed the petition. It held that the tax authorities failed to consider that the selling dealer had filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, and that ITC details were auto-populated in GSTR-2A, which were never disputed. As the selling dealer was registered on the date of transaction, and tax collected by the seller stood deposited with the revenue, neither the invoices nor the transactions could be doubted. In absence of proof of fraud or willful misstatement by the purchaser, denial of ITC and levy of interest and penalty were unsustainable. en-us Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2025 08:12:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782901 HC quashed the impugned orders issued under Section 74 of the GST Act against the purchasing dealer and allowed the petition. It held that the tax authorities failed to consider that the selling dealer had filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, and that ITC details were auto-populated in GSTR-2A, which were never disputed. As the selling dealer was registered on the date of transaction, and tax collected by the seller stood deposited with the revenue, neither the invoices nor the transactions could be doubted. In absence of proof of fraud or willful misstatement by the purchaser, denial of ITC and levy of interest and penalty were unsustainable. Case-Laws GST Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782901