2023 (6) TMI 533

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ating Authority is withheld. 2. The petitioner being the registered taxable person (RTP) claimed credit of input tax against supply made from a supplier. As per the ledger account of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019, the total purchase credit was Rs. 13,04,586/-. The petitioner has filed a tax invoice cum chalan reflecting a purchase of Rs. 11,31,513.00 from Global Bitumen. The debit note issued in the name of the transporter i.e. the International Transport Corporation for an amount of Rs. 1,73,073.00/-. The petitioner has made payment to Global Bitumen from the account of the petitioner through bank. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order issued by the respondent authorities for not allowing the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies have not considered the said documents and from the said documents, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has purchased the goods from the supplier and had transported the said goods and also transferred the amount through bank in the account of the supplier. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon unreported judgment passed by the Principal Bench of this Court in WPA 23512 of 2019 (M/s. LGW Industries Limited & Ors. -vs- Union of India & Ors.) dated 13th December, 2021 and the Judgment reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1412 (Balaji Exim -vs- Commissioner, CGST & Ors.) and submitted that the allegation of fake credit availed by Global Bitumen cannot be a ground for rejecting the petitioner's refund application unless it is es....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has paid the amount of purchased articles as well as tax on the same through bank and not in cash. 14. It is not the case of the respondents that there is a collusion between the petitioner and supplier with regard to the transaction. 15. This Court finds that without proper verification, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the petitioner in compliance of any obligation required under the statute before entering into the transactions in question. 16. The respondent authorities only taking into consideration of the cancellation of registration of the supplier with retrospective effect have rejected the claim of the petitioner without considering the documents relied by the petitioner. 17. The unreported judgment ....