2024 (1) TMI 1049

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....files requisite returns. After the receipt of a communication regarding the blocking of credit, the petitioner received both an intimation and the show cause notice from the respondents. Eventually, the order impugned herein came to be issued. By the said order, the Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by the petitioner in respect of purchases made from M/s.Prince Sales Agency was reversed on the ground that the said entity is non-existent and is not conducting business. The present writ petition arises in the said facts and circumstances. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be penalised because the GST registration of M/s.Prince Sales Agency was cancelled subsequently with retrospective effect. She further....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0/- was claimed by the said entity. Out of this, she submits that about Rs. 11,00,000/- is attributable to alleged purchases by the petitioner. As regards the reliance of Jinsasan Distributors, learned counsel submits that the said judgment stands overruled by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sahyadri Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, T.C.Nos.19 of 2022 batch, judgment dated 18.04.2023 (Sahyadri Industries). In particular, reliance is placed on paragraphs 91 and 114 of the said judgment. Learned counsel submits that Section 16(2) of the TNGST Act read with Rule 36 thereof imposes the obligation on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transaction in relation to which ITC is claimed. Since this involves....