2025 (6) TMI 1791

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner has approached this Court since the GST Tribunal is not functioning. 3. Mr Purohit, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the registration has been cancelled under Section 29(2) (e) of the CGST Act, 2017 which is not attracted in the present case since at the time of obtaining the registration, the same was not obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. He further submits that Petitioner has denied the admissions in the statements made before the authorities on issuing the fake ITC and Invoices. He, therefore, submits that since the provisions of Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted, the orders passed by both the authorities are required to be quashed and set aside. 4. M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he ITC benefit is taken without there being any genuine transactions of buying and selling. The Order-In-Original does not refer to any subclauses of Section 29(2), but it only refers to Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 21 of CGST Rules 2017. We, therefore, do not accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that only provisions of Section 29(2) (e) are invoked. On a reading of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Order-In-Original, it is very clear that the provisions of Section 29(2) (a) are invoked read with Rule 21, which deals with fake Input Tax Credit and non-conducting of the business from the address mentioned to the GST Authorities. 6. The Appellate Authority after considering the submissions and the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t enough and cannot be said to be discharging the burden of proof cast under Section 70 the KVAT Act, 2023. 17. The appellant during proceedings didn't produce any of the above said documents. Therefore, in view of discussions and findings at above mentioned paras, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected." 7. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the Appeal since the Petitioner could not produce any documentary evidence in support of his submission although he undertook before both the authorities and in the previous round of litigation before this Court to produce all the documents. 8. The Commissioner (Appeal) has followed the decision in the case of State of Karnataka vs Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt Ltd ....