The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in Himalaya Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [CWP No. 8809 of 2025 dated June 06, 2025] held that Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) cannot be denied solely on the ground of retrospective cancellation of supplier’s GST registration without first examining the genuineness of the transaction and relevant documents.
Facts:
M/s Himalaya Communication Private Limited (“the Petitioner”) filed a writ petition seeking relief against denial of ITC by the Department. The Petitioner challenged two orders dated January 10, 2025 and March 31, 2024 passed by Union of India and Others (“the Respondents”) whereby the Petitioner’s claim for ITC was rejected. The Respondents rejected the claim for ITC, solely on the ground that the GST registration of the supplier had been cancelled retrospectively.
The Petitioner submitted that the tax was duly paid to the supplier, all requisite documents were in place, and the supplier had filed the relevant GSTR-3B return showing discharge of tax liability. Despite this, without evaluating the authenticity of the underlying transaction, the Respondents had invoked Section 16(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) and thereafter issued a show cause notice (“the SCN”) and denied the ITC.
Issue:
Whether ITC can be denied merely on account of retrospective cancellation of the supplier’s GST registration, without evaluating the genuineness of the underlying transaction and documents?
Held:
The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No. 8809 of 2025 held as under:
- The Respondents sole basis for denial of ITC was the retrospective cancellation of the supplier’s GST registration. However, there was no material on record to show that the Respondents had examined whether the transaction in question was genuine or not.
- Held that, before initiating proceedings to deny ITC under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, the authorities were required to examine the documents to verify the nature of the transaction. Such an exercise was not undertaken in the instant case.
- Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned orders dated January 10, 2025 and March 31, 2024 and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration.
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
