TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 2056
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITC) disputed in the proceedings. 1.2. The case relates to the availment of ITC during the financial year 2019-20 on inward supplies received from M/S Edge Techunified Private Limited, GSTIN 07AADCE5186HIZI. During scrutiny, it was noticed that the registration of the said supplier had subsequently been cancelled suo motu with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017. Consequently, proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 were initiated. 1.3. The Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated 22.08.2024, disallowed ITC amounting to Rs. 3,14,326/-, along with applicable interest and penalty. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Authority. 1.4. The First Appellate Authority, while examining....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. 3.2. The appellant stated that the First Appellate Authority erred in allowing ITC amounting to Rs. 76,750.20 on invoices issued by M/s. Edge Techunified Private Limited, whose registration was cancelled suo motu with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017 under Section 29 of the Act. 3.3. The appellant stated that the invoices issued by a retrospectively cancelled entity could not be treated as valid documents for availment of ITC in terms of Section 16(2)(a) read with Rule 36(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3.4. The appellant further stated that the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 16(2), particularly the requirement relating to payment of tax to the Government as contemplated under Section 16(2)(c), had not been fulfil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as the present case involved retrospective cancellation of the supplier's registration from inception and alleged non-fulfilment of the conditions prescribed under Section 16(2). 3.13. The appellant finally stated that the impugned Order-in-Appeal was legally unsustainable to the extent of Rs. 76,750.20 and prayed for setting aside of the relief granted by the First Appellate Authority. 4. SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT 4.1. The Appellant submitted that the supplier, M/s. Edge Techunified Private Limited, had been cancelled suo motu with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017 and, therefore, the invoices issued by the said supplier could not validly support availment of ITC. 4.2 It was submitted that the conditions prescribed under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITC, but the reduction in the amount of ITC reversal to the extent of the subsequent amendment in the entries reported in GSTR-2A. The respondent submitted that the First Appellate Authority had considered the subsequent amendment reflected in the relevant GST records. 5.4. The respondent submitted that, at the relevant time, the supplier was registered on the GST portal and the transactions had been reported in the relevant GST returns. It was contended that the Appellant had considered the figures reported in Table B2B but had not properly considered the subsequent amendment reflected in Table B2BA. 5.5. The respondent further submitted that the grounds relating to GSTR-9 were not part of the allegations contained in the original pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowed ITC of Rs. 3,14,326/- in respect of the inward supplies received from M/S Edge Techunified Private Limited. The First Appellate Authority, however, granted limited relief of Rs. 76,750.20 after considering the subsequent amendment/status reflected in the GST records in respect of the relevant invoices. 6.3. The principal contention of the Department is that the registration of the supplier was cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017 and, consequently, the invoices issued by the supplier could not be relied upon for availment of ITC. The Department has also contended that subsequent amendment in the GST portal could not cure the alleged ineligibility. 6.4. We find that the First Appellate Authority did not allow t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al infirmity in the relief granted by the First Appellate Authority. 6.8. The respondent has also pointed out that the issues relating to the GSTR-9 figures were not the basis of the original proceedings under Section 73 and has relied upon Section 75(7) of the Act. We find that this contention has relevance to the extent that the demand cannot be sustained on a ground materially different from the grounds forming the basis of the proceedings. The Department has not demonstrated before us how the GSTR-9 discrepancies, by themselves, invalidate the specific relief granted by the First Appellate Authority. 6.9. As regards the Department's reliance upon Section 16(2), Section 16(2)(c) and Section 155 of the Act, we observe that the statu....