2021 (12) TMI 834

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f 2021 - -<br>GST<br>[Md. Nizamuddin, J] Mr. Vinay Kumar Shraff Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray Ms. Priya Sarah Paul ...for the petitioners (in all writ petitions, except WPA 12964/2019) Mr. Jaydip Kar, sr. adv. Mr. Arijit Chakraborty Mr. Debsoumya Basak Mr. Pranit Bag Mr. Nilotpal Chowdhury Mr. Prabir Bera Mr. Subhas Chandra Jana Mr. V. Neogi Mr. D. Saha ...for the petitioners (in WPA 12964/2019) Mr Y.J. Dastoor, Additional Solicitor-General Mr. S. Bhattacharya Mr. V. Kundalia Mr. S. Lahiri Mr. Tapan Bhanja Mr. Sujit Mitra ...for the Union of India Mr. K.K. Maiti Mr. Amitabha Roy Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee Mr. Somnath Ganguli Ms. Sabnam Basu Ms. Manasi Mukherjee Mr. Sukalpa Seal ...for Customs Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Advocate-General ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....all fake and nonexisting and the bank accounts opened by those suppliers are on the basis of fake documents and petitioners' claim of benefit of input tax credit are not supported by the relevant documents, and the case of the respondents is also that the petitioners have not verified the genuineness and identity of the aforesaid suppliers who are registered taxable persons (RTP) before entering into any transaction with those suppliers. Further grounds of denying the input tax credit benefit to the petitioners by the respondents are that the registration of suppliers in question has already been cancelled with retrospective effect covering the transactions period in question. The main contention of the petitioners in these writ petit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and the suppliers in question. Petitioners further submit that all the purchases in question invoices-wise were available on the GST portal in form GSTR-2A which are matters of record. Considering the facts as recorded subject to further verification it cannot be said that that there was any failure on the part of the petitioners in compliance of any obligation required under the statute before entering the transactions in question or for verification of the genuineness of the suppliers in question. The petitioners in support of their contention and proposition of law as discussed above rely on the following decisions:- 1) Commissioner of C. Ex. East Singhbhum v. Tata Motors Ltd. reported in 2013 (294) ELT 394 (Jhar). ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in 2019 (13) SCC 225; 3) Jayram & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner & Ors. reported in 2016 (15) SCC 125; 4) Godrej & Boycentg & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. GST reported in 1992 (3) SCC 624; 5) TVS Motors v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2019 (13) SCC 403; 6) Collector of Ex Commissioner v. Douba Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. reported in 1988 (37) ELT-478; and 7) D.Y. Bethal Enterprise v. The State Tax Officer (Data Cell) in W.P. (MD) No.2127 of 2021. Considering the submission of the parties and on perusal of records available, these writ petitions are disposed of by remanding these cases to the respondents concerned to consider afresh the cases of the petitioners on the issue of their entitlement of benef....