CA in Jaipur | CA. Yogesh Jangid |ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases |

Blocked Input Tax Credit (ITC) under GST: Key Points You Need to Know

editor — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 05:48:46 +0000

In the realm of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in India, understanding Input Tax Credit (ITC) is crucial for businesses to ensure compliance and optimize their tax liabilities. However, not all GST paid on purchases can be claimed as ITC. There are certain scenarios where the Input Tax Credit is blocked, preventing businesses from claiming it against their output tax liability. In this comprehensive guide, we delve into the concept of Blocked Input Tax Credit under GST, highlighting key points and recent rulings.

What is Blocked Input Tax Credit (ITC)?

Blocked Input Tax Credit, as per GST laws, refers to specific goods and services on which GST is paid but businesses are ineligible to claim them as Input Tax Credit. These items are deemed ineligible because they are not considered as inputs directly utilized in the production or provision of taxable goods or services.

Recent Rulings and Clarifications:

Introduction:

In the complex landscape of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in India, the eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) plays a significant role for businesses. The recent ruling by the Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling regarding Las Palmas Co-Op. Housing Society sheds light on crucial aspects of ITC denial. Let’s delve into the details to understand the implications of this ruling.

Facts of the Case:

Las Palmas Co-Op. Housing Society sought to avail Input Tax Credit for lift installation charges paid to the lift contractor. However, the Maharashtra Appellate Authority upheld the ruling of the Maharastra Advance Ruling Authority, denying the society’s eligibility for ITC. Citing sections 16(2)(b), 17(5)(c), and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, the authority emphasized that ITC would only be available for tax paid on works contract services when such services are utilized as input for further supply of works contract service.

Issue:

The central issue revolves around the eligibility criteria for Input Tax Credit under the CGST Act. The appellant, Las Palmas Co-Op. Housing Society, failed to fulfill the conditions outlined for availing ITC on works contract services. The authority highlighted that the society, not being a works contract service provider, did not provide any works contract service to its members, thereby rendering it ineligible for ITC.

Held:

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling affirmed the decision of the Maharastra Advance Ruling Authority, ruling that Las Palmas Co-Op. Housing Society is not eligible to avail Input Tax Credit in respect of the GST paid on lift installation charges. The authority emphasized that the appellant did not meet the criteria outlined in sections 16(2)(b), 17(5)(c), and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was deemed not maintainable and liable to be rejected.

Introduction

The case of Malabar Cements Limited, brought before the Authority for Advance Ruling in Kerala, sheds light on the complexities surrounding input tax credit under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime in India. This case revolves around the eligibility of Malabar Cements Limited to claim input tax credit on the GST charged by a service provider for hiring buses or motor vehicles with a seating capacity of more than 13 persons for employee transportation. Understanding the outcome of this case is crucial for businesses navigating the nuances of GST regulations.

Facts of the Case

Malabar Cements Limited, a government-owned Public Sector Company in Kerala, sought an advance ruling regarding the admissibility of input tax credit on GST charged by a service provider for providing transportation facilities to its employees. The company operates its factory round-the-clock in remote areas where public transportation is limited. To ensure the commuting needs of its employees are met, Malabar Cements Limited engages a service provider to provide non-air-conditioned buses with a seating capacity exceeding 13 persons. The service provider levies a GST of 5% on the hiring charges, leading to the question of whether Malabar Cements Limited can avail input tax credit on this GST.

Issue

The central issue in this case is twofold. Firstly, it concerns the eligibility of Malabar Cements Limited to claim input tax credit on the GST charged by the service provider for hiring buses or motor vehicles with a seating capacity exceeding 13 persons for employee transportation. Secondly, it delves into the extent to which the input tax credit can be availed by Malabar Cements Limited, particularly considering the portion of the transportation cost borne by the company itself.

Held

Upon thorough examination of the relevant legal provisions and the arguments presented by Malabar Cements Limited, the Authority for Advance Ruling concluded that the company is indeed eligible to avail input tax credit on the GST charged by the service provider. However, the extent of this credit is restricted to the cost of transportation borne by Malabar Cements Limited. This ruling provides clarity on an important aspect of GST compliance for businesses engaged in employee transportation services and underscores the need for meticulous adherence to statutory provisions.

Introduction

The recent ruling by the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in Madhya Pradesh has significant implications for businesses in the amusement park industry, particularly regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The case of Atriwal Amusement Park sheds light on the eligibility criteria for claiming ITC on various components and services utilized in the construction of water parks, offering crucial guidance to businesses operating in this sector

Facts of the Case

Atriwal Amusement Park, a company specializing in the construction of water parks, sought clarification from the AAR regarding the eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on several aspects of its construction activities. The key components and services under scrutiny included the purchase of water slides, site development services, and the construction of swimming pools or wave pools, all of which are subject to taxation under GST regulations.

Issue

The central issue in this case pertains to the eligibility of Atriwal Amusement Park to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on specific components and services utilized in the construction of water parks. The inquiry seeks clarification on whether these elements qualify as ‘Plant and Equipment’ under GST provisions, thus enabling the applicant to avail of ITC benefits.

Held

Upon careful consideration of the facts and legal provisions, the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in Madhya Pradesh arrived at the following decisions:

Water Slides: The AAR ruled in favor of Atriwal Amusement Park, affirming its eligibility to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the purchase of water slides made from durable PVC material. This decision is based on the classification of water slides as ‘apparatus, equipment, and machinery,’ thereby meeting the criteria for ITC under GST regulations.

Site Development Services: However, the AAR denied ITC claims on goods and services related to site development and preparation where water slides are installed. The rationale behind this decision lies in the exclusion of land-related services from the definition of ‘Plant and Equipment’ eligible for ITC benefits.

Swimming Pools or Wave Pools: Similarly, the AAR ruled against the eligibility of ITC on the construction of swimming pools or wave pools. Despite being integral components of amusement parks, these structures were deemed civil in nature and not considered part of the supportive framework or foundation of the plant, thus falling outside the scope of ‘Plant and Equipment’ for ITC purposes.

Introduction

The integration of solar power systems has become increasingly common as businesses seek to adopt sustainable and eco-friendly energy solutions. This article examines a specific case, the ruling in the matter of Unique Welding Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. GST AAR Gujarat, to explore the eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the installation and commissioning of a roof-top solar system.

Facts of the Case

Unique Welding Products Pvt. Ltd., a welding wires manufacturing and sales company based in Anand, Gujarat, installed a roof-top solar system with a capacity of 440 KW on its factory roof for captive power generation. The company sought clarification on its eligibility for ITC under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

Issue

The main issues raised in the case were whether Unique Welding Products Pvt. Ltd. is eligible for ITC on the purchased roof-top solar system with installation & commissioning and whether the roof-top solar system, along with its installation and commissioning, constitutes plant and machinery, making it eligible for ITC under section 17(5) of the CGST Act.

Held

The ruling authority concluded that unique Welding Products Pvt. Ltd. is eligible to avail ITC on the roof-top solar system with installation & commissioning under the CGST/GGST Act and the roof-top solar system, with installation and commissioning, qualifies as plant and machinery for the company, making it eligible for ITC under section 17(5) of the CGST/GGST Act.

Introduction

The West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling recently tackled the question of Input Tax Credit (ITC) eligibility concerning the construction of immovable property subsequently leased out for commercial purposes. This article provides an overview of the ruling, its implications, and the legal context surrounding it.

Facts of the Case

M/s. Mindrill Systems and Solutions Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent,” constructed a warehouse and leased it to a commercial entity. GST was duly paid on this supply of service. Subsequently, the Respondent sought an Advance Ruling from the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (WBAAR) regarding the availability of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for capital expenses incurred during the warehouse’s construction. The question pertained to whether these expenses could offset tax liabilities arising from renting out the warehouse.

Issue

The central issue at hand revolved around whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) could be claimed in relation to the construction of immovable property subsequently let out for commercial purposes.

Held

The West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, in Appeal No. 04/WBAAAR/Appeal/2023, deliberated on the matter. It observed that clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”), dictate that ITC is not available for works contract services or goods or services received for the construction of immovable property. Therefore, such transactions fall within the purview of blocked credit.

Furthermore, the Authority noted that the explanation provided in clause (d) of Section 17 specifies that credit is also blocked for reconstruction, renovation, additions, alterations, or repairs capitalized in the books of accounts. However, it clarified that the condition of capitalization in the books of accounts applies solely to the mentioned activities related to immovable property.

In conclusion, the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that no Input Tax Credit (ITC) is available concerning the construction of the warehouse subsequently leased out by the Applicant.

Introduction

The recent ruling by the GST AAAR Tamilnadu has shed light on a crucial aspect of Input Tax Credit (ITC) concerning structural support for overhead cranes within an ‘Integrated Factory’ building. Coral Manufacturing Works India Private Limited brought forth an appeal challenging the existing orders of the Advance Ruling Authority, Tamil Nadu, seeking clarification on the applicability of ITC in this scenario.

Facts of the Case

Coral Manufacturing Works India Private Limited constructed a warehouse and let it out for commercial purposes, paying GST on the service provided. The company filed an application for Advance Ruling, questioning whether ITC could be availed for the capital expenses incurred on the construction of the warehouse. The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling held that ITC was not admissible for expenses capitalized in the books of account. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the Revenue Department appealed against it.

Issue

The primary issue revolved around the eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) concerning structural support erected for overhead cranes within an ‘Integrated Factory’ building. Coral Manufacturing Works India Private Limited sought clarification on whether the Integrated Factory Building itself could be considered as plant and machinery under the CGST Act.

Held

The GST AAAR Tamilnadu held that while the overhead crane and its structural support qualified as plant and machinery, the Integrated Factory Building itself did not. Consequently, Coral Manufacturing Works India Private Limited was only eligible for an ITC proportional to the structural support for the overhead crane, but not for the construction of other civil structures like the building’s side walls and roof.

Introduction

In the case of Raminfo Limited, the GST AAR Telangana has made a significant determination regarding the eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the purchase of a 7-seater vehicle, which will be converted into an ambulance for onward supply. This article explores the details of the ruling, its implications, and the broader context of GST regulations.

Facts of the Case

Raminfo Limited has secured a work order from the Government of Tripura to supply ambulances, specifically Mobile Common Service Centres. To fulfill this order, they are procuring Maruti Suzuki Eeco (7 seater) vehicles and modifying them in their workshop located in Hyderabad, Telangana State. Seeking clarity on GST rates and ITC admissibility, Raminfo Limited filed an advance ruling before the AAR Telangana.

Issue

The primary issue at hand is whether Raminfo Limited is eligible to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the purchase of Maruti Suzuki Eeco (7 seater) vehicles, which will be transformed into ambulances for onward supply to the Government of Tripura.

Held

The AAR Telangana, in its order TSAAR Order No.02/2023, concluded that Raminfo Limited is indeed eligible to avail ITC on the purchase of vehicles used for further supply. Citing Section 17(5)(a) of the CGST Act, the AAR noted that ITC on such purchases is not blocked. Therefore, Raminfo Limited can claim ITC on the tax paid for the purchased vehicles. Additionally, the AAR clarified that GST at the rate of 28% will be applicable on the supply of ambulances to the Government of Tripura.

Understanding Blocked Input Tax Credit under GST is paramount for businesses to avoid unnecessary tax liabilities and ensure compliance. By staying updated with recent rulings and clarifications, businesses can make informed decisions regarding their tax planning strategies. It’s imperative to consult with tax experts to navigate the complexities of GST laws effectively.

category

E-Invoicing Under GST

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:41:19 +0000

E-invoicing within the GST framework refers to the electronic authentication of invoices as outlined by GST regulations. It’s akin to how GST-registered businesses utilize e-way bills for transporting goods. Likewise, specific GST-registered entities are required to produce e-invoices for their Business-to-Business (B2B) transactions.

What is e-invoicing under GST?

E-invoicing, or electronic invoicing, refers to a system where B2B invoices and certain other documents are electronically authenticated by GSTN for further use on the common GST portal.
The GST Council decided to implement e-invoicing in its 35th meeting, initially covering specific categories of mostly large enterprises, which later expanded to include mid-sized and small businesses.

Who must generate e-invoice and its Applicability?

E-invoicing applies based on turnover criteria or e-invoice limits set by phases.
Taxpayers exceeding specified turnover limits in any financial year from 2017-18 to 2021-22 must comply with e-invoicing from FY 2022-23 onwards.
Certain notified businesses are exempt from e-invoicing, such as insurers, banking companies, and others as listed by CBIC notifications.

Transactions and documents criteria

Systems before & after e-invoicing

Time limit to generate e-Invoice

Process of getting an e-invoice

Benefits of e-Invoicing to businesses

How can e-invoicing curb tax evasion?

What are the mandatory fields of an e-invoice?

category

GST Implications on Lump Sum Transfer Charges for Leasehold Rights

editor — Sat, 06 Apr 2024 04:51:43 +0000

In a recent ruling by the Uttar Pradesh Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR), Remarkable Industries (P.) Ltd. sought clarification regarding the GST implications on lump sum upfront premium paid as transfer charges for leasehold rights. The case, identified as Advance Ruling No. UP/ADRG/41/2023, offers significant insights into the classification and applicable GST rate concerning the transfer of leasehold rights.

Facts of the Case:

Remarkable Industries (P.) Ltd. ("the Applicant") operates in the manufacturing and selling of various products.
The Applicant acquired an industrial plot from the Noida Authority under a lease deed for a 99-year period.
The lease involved the payment of a lump sum upfront premium and subsequent annual lease charges.
After utilizing the plot for manufacturing purposes, the Applicant decided to transfer its leasehold rights to M/s S K Industries ("the Assignee") for consideration.
The transfer process required permission from the Noida Authority, payment of transfer charges by the buyer, and the execution of a fresh lease deed with the Assignee.
Notably, the transfer did not entail sub-leasing or creation of fresh benefits from the land; it solely involved the transfer of existing leasehold rights for consideration.

Issue:

Whether the activity of transferring leasehold rights by the Applicant constitutes sub-leasing and, if not, what is the appropriate classification and applicable GST rate for the said activity?

Held:

The Uttar Pradesh, AAR in Advance Ruling No. UP/ADRG/41/2023 held as follows:

The activity of the Applicant is akin to agreeing to transfer one's leasehold rights and does not amount to sub-leasing.
The transfer represents compensation for agreeing to transfer the leasehold rights to the Assignee without creating additional benefits from the land.
As per the CGST Act and Schedule II, the transaction is classified as a service rather than a transfer of immovable property.
The Applicant's right under the lease deed is extinguished after assignment, and there is no creation of fresh benefits from the land.
The transaction falls under "Other miscellaneous service" (SAC 999792) and is taxable at an 18% GST rate as per Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017.

category

Investigation of Large Corporations and Multinational Companies under GST Requires ‘Formal Authorization’

editor — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 07:46:09 +0000

The Department of Revenue has issued directives to CGST officials regarding the initiation of investigations into cases involving prominent industrial entities and multinational corporations (MNCs). These guidelines aim to streamline procedures and ensure uniformity in enforcement activities while maintaining the ease of doing business.

These guidelines outline specific scenarios where written approval from the zonal Chief Commissioner is necessary before initiating an investigation or taking action. These include cases involving large corporates, major MNCs, matters already under consideration by the GST Council, or matters seeking to impose taxes or duties on a sector, commodity, or service for the first time under Central excise or GST.

The precise definition of ‘big industrial house’ and major MNCs under these guidelines remains unclear to tax experts. Additionally, the guidelines require CGST field formations to gather details on prevailing trade practices and transaction nature from stakeholders in such cases, ensuring sufficient justification for initiating investigations and actions.

This uniform procedure was introduced following discussions by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on the necessity for standardized enforcement procedures by CGST field formations, particularly concerning regular taxpayers and their impact on the ease of doing business.

Furthermore, tax officials are instructed to confirm whether any ongoing inquiries relate to the same subject matter or taxpayer by another investigating office or tax administration. This information must be presented to the authority responsible for approving the investigation’s initiation.

Experts believe that the directive addresses industry concerns, emphasizing the importance of effective implementation to promote tax certainty and stability in the business environment.

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/now-gst-probe-into-big-corporates-major-mncs-needs-a-written-approval/article68013343.ece

category

Madras High Court Invalidates GST Assessment Over ITC Disparity

editor — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 04:58:07 +0000

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court addressed the validity of a GST assessment order in the case of Sri Lakshmi Silvers versus The State Tax Officer, Gugai Circle, Salem. The case centered on the adherence to procedural guidelines and principles of natural justice in GST assessments, particularly concerning disparities between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, engaged in the supply of base metals, faced a GST assessment order pertaining to the tax demand arising from differences between the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed in GSTR-3B returns and that reflected in the auto-populated GSTR-2A returns for the year 2019-20.
Despite receiving a notice and show cause notice, the petitioner, relying on their accountant, remained unaware, resulting in no response from their side.
The central issue revolved around the validity of the assessment order, particularly concerning principles of natural justice and adherence to specific circulars regarding GST return discrepancies.

Petitioner’s Argument:

Department’s Argument:

Held:

category

Decision by High Court Allows Refund of Reversed ITC When Supplier Pays Tax

editor — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 04:23:57 +0000

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Pedersen Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P. (C) 1039/2024 dated March 19, 2024], resolved the writ petition, permitting registered entities to submit refund applications for reversed Input Tax Credit (ITC) when the supplier has subsequently filed returns and paid taxes.

Facts of the case:

In the matter of Pedersen Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P. (C) 1039/2024 dated March 19, 2024], the petitioner, Pedersen Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition. The petition sought direction for granting Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits on invoices where the recipient had filed subsequent returns and paid taxes.
The petitioner argued that they were compelled by the Revenue Department to pay taxes on invoices where the supplier hadn't filed returns on time. However, the supplier later filed returns and paid taxes, potentially leading to double taxation. Hence, the petitioner sought a refund for the taxes paid on such invoices.
Responding to objections, the petitioner proposed filing a refund application under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Additionally, they cited Notification No. 13/2022 dated July 05, 2022, advocating the exclusion of the period between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2023, from the limitation for filing refund applications. The petitioner also requested exclusion of the period between filing the writ petition and the court's order.

Held:

The Delhi High Court, in W.P. (C) 1039/2024, dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file a refund application under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The court directed the respondent to adjudicate the petitioner's claim in accordance with the law. Notably, the court recognized the petitioner's eligibility under the Notification, excluding the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for computing the limitation period for filing refund applications.

category

Revenue Department is not empowered to seize Cash under GST

editor — Sat, 30 Mar 2024 10:09:45 +0000

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Jagdish Bansal v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 16677 of 2023 dated February 26, 2024], granted relief to the petitioner by allowing the writ petition. The court instructed the Revenue Department to return the seized cash along with interest. The judgment emphasized that the Revenue Department lacks authority to seize cash under the applicable GST laws.

Facts of the case:

Search and seizure procedures were conducted at the premises of Jagdish Bansal, resulting in the confiscation of cash by the Revenue Department.

Displeased by this action, Jagdish Bansal filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the lawfulness of the cash seizure.

Issue:

The central issue at hand was whether the Revenue Department possessed the legal authority to seize cash under the GST framework.

Held:

In its ruling on W.P. (C) NO. 16677 OF 2023, the Delhi High Court made the following determinations:

Referencing the decision of the Delhi High Court in K.M Food Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Mukesh Kapoor Vs Director General DGGI Headquarters [W.P. (C) 328/2024 dated February 13, 2024], the court construed Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
It observed that cash does not fall under the definition of goods but rather under the definition of money as outlined in Section 2(75) of the CGST Act.
The court reiterated that cash cannot be categorized as goods and therefore cannot be subject to seizure.
It concluded that there was no valid reason for the Revenue Department to retain the seized cash.
Consequently, the court deemed the impugned order as null and directed the Revenue Department to return the seized cash along with interest.

category

CBIC Declares March 29-31, 2024 as Working Days for All Customs Field Formations

editor — Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:06:36 +0000

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has announced that March 29th, 30th, and 31st, 2024 will be considered as working days for all Customs field formations. This decision is communicated through a letter dated March 28, 2024, with reference number F.No.401/118/2016-Cus.III (Pt.).

All Customs field offices are required to remain operational during these days, and officers and staff are expected to report for duty as usual. It is requested that this information be disseminated among all personnel for compliance.

The directive has been issued with the approval of the relevant authority.

The full letter can be accessed at: https://www.nyca.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Letter_Customs_Working_Day_280324.pdf

category

CBDT notifies changes in ITR Form V and Acknowledgement for AY 2024-25

editor — Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:28:31 +0000

The CBDT, through Notification No. 37/2024 dated March 27, 2024, has introduced revisions to the ITR form V and Acknowledgement for Assessment Year 2024-25. These changes align with amendments made in the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Income Tax Rules, 1962, following the Finance Act, 2023.

For further details, the full notification can be viewed at: https://www.nyca.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/CBDT_37-2024-27.3.2024.pdf

category

Delhi High Court Alters Retrospective Revocation of GST Registration

editor — Thu, 28 Mar 2024 04:52:32 +0000

In the legal case of Supreme Enterprises versus Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, North Delhi, the Delhi High Court recently deliberated on the matter of retroactively canceling GST registration.

Facts of the case:

The petitioner contested an order issued on 07.07.2023, which retroactively annulled their GST registration starting from 18.01.2022. This cancellation stemmed from a show cause notice dated 06.06.2023, citing non-compliance with return filing requirements. However, the notice lacked specificity and failed to afford the petitioner adequate opportunity to respond.

The petitioner had previously sought cancellation of their GST registration multiple times due to business closure, but these requests were denied. Subsequently, they received a show cause notice lacking in detailed explanations or justifications.

The order for cancellation lacked clarity and reasoning, casting doubt on its validity. It did not sufficiently explain the grounds for cancellation or the resulting liabilities, nor did it justify the retroactive nature of the cancellation.

Held:

The court stressed that retrospective cancellation of GST registration must be grounded in objective criteria and not solely on non-compliance with return filing obligations. It recognized the significant ramifications of such cancellations for both the taxpayer and their customers, particularly concerning input tax credit.

Taking into account the petitioner’s cessation of business operations, the court amended the contested order to cancel the registration effective from the date of business closure, i.e., 26.07.2022. The petitioner was instructed to adhere to the necessary regulations outlined in Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Nevertheless, the court clarified that the authorities could still pursue steps for recovering any outstanding dues, including retrospective cancellation, in accordance with the law.

category