GST NEWS BULLETIN

“No Reversal of ITC on Ground that Supplier was Non-Existent if Documentary Evidence Was Duly Produced”

The Madras High Court in the case of TVL.Cleon Optobiz (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner held that the reversal of ITC on the ground that the entity did not exist and did not conduct business is not tenable as per law. The petitioner produced all the relevant documents in front of the respected court, including invoices, e-way bills, and proof of payment of invoices in the form of relevant banks. However, the impugned order recorded a finding that the petitioner had not produced documents as required under GST law.

The Court also noted that the petitioner was not put on notice that goods dealt with by it were different from those dealt with by its supplier, but a finding was recorded on this issue in the impugned order. Therefore, it was held that the impugned order was liable to be quashed and the matter was to be remanded for reconsideration.

Read more at

“Assessment Order liable to be set aside when Notice is not served physically.”

The Madras High Court, in the case of Jak Communications (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer disposed of a writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the revenue department where the notices were not served to the assessee in physical form even though the notices were uploaded on the GST portal.

Noted that the Notices and the Impugned Order were uploaded in the GST portal in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column. The Petitioner was not physically served to the Petitioner, so the Petitioner was unaware of the said notices. In addition, the Court opined that no order can be passed without granting the reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Court held that the Impugned Order is set aside, and the matter be remitted back to the Respondent for adjudication.

Read more at