TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('WBGST Act, 2017', for short) and is directed against the appellate order dated May 16, 2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Appellate Authority, Siliguri Circle, Siliguri thereby affirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax being the adjudicating authority, Siliguri Charge, Siliguri dated August 29, 2024. 3. A show-cause notice under Section 73(1) of the WBGST Act, 2017 was issued alleging that certain discrepancies were found upon examination of the returns filed for the financial year 2019-2020 and the petitioner was asked to pay tax, interest and other amounts arising from such discrepancies or furnish an explanation for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the appellate authority was justified in affirming the findings of the adjudicating authority in respect of the discrepancies pointed out under serial no. 3. 7. Under discrepancy no. 3 it was alleged that the petitioner availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) on supplies made by the persons whose registration was cancelled retrospectively and that such ITC is not admissible under Section 16 of the CGST and WBGST Act, 2017. 8. Petitioner claims to have submitted various documents before the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority in support of his contention that the purchases made by the petitioner was a bona fide one and there was actual physical movement of the goods from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PA 708 of 2025 in the case of Shyamalmay Paul -Vs-. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Siliguri Charge & Ors. He submits that the appellate authority mechanically affirmed the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 12. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that in spite of repeated opportunities of hearing being provided to the petitioner, the petitioner did not appear for personal hearing before the appellate authority. He submits that the burden of proof lies upon the person claiming Input Tax Credit to substantiate by production of material evidence that the transaction was a bona fide one and there was actual physical movement of goods from the supplier's end to the purchaser. He further submits that the appellate au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the GST registration of the supplier in question namely Arijit Dey is prior to the date of issuance of the invoices but it is not in dispute that the GST registration of the said supplier was cancelled after issuance of the invoice date but with a retrospective effect from October 12, 2018. 17. It is not the case of the Revenue that as on the date when the supplies are claimed to have been made by Arijit Dey to the petitioner, the registration of the supplier was not valid. 18. It is now well-settled that retrospective cancellation of registration of the supplier, cannot be the sole ground for denying the Input Tax Credit to the purchaser. Apart from holding that the invoice dates were after the effective date of cancellation of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were also not considered. 20. In Shyamalmay Paul (supra) on more or less identical facts, this court had set aside the order of the authorities on the ground no finding was recorded on the document produced with regard to movement of goods and also whether the requirement of availing the ITC as prescribed under the statute was complied with or not. The said decision shall squarely apply to the facts of this case. 21. For all the reasons as aforesaid, this court holds that the order passed by the appellate authority is a non-speaking order and only for such reason the same is liable to be set aside. 22. Accordingly, the order of the appellate authority dated May 16, 2025 insofar as it relates to discrepancy under serial no. 3 is co....