M/S Anil Rice Mill vs State Of U.P. And Others on 14 August, 2024

Issue:

Whether the petitioner can claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) when the genuineness of the transaction and the physical movement of goods cannot be established.

Facts:

It is the case of petitioner-assessee, Anil Rice Mill, which claimed ITC of purchases of peanuts, paddy, and galla on the basis of tax invoices and e-way bills. The Department contended that this was on a forged invoice basis without the actual movement of goods. While furnishing tax invoices, e-way bills, and proof of payment through banking channels, the petitioner did not bring along freight charges, delivery acknowledgements, or toll receipts to confirm the physical movement of goods.

Further, the assessee did not produce any evidence of the GSTR 2A filed, which would have reflected the fact whether the supplier has uploaded the concerned details in his GST return.

Judgement:

Held that for claiming ITC, it must be established that the authenticity of the transaction and physical movement of goods. Since no documents including freight records or toll receipts are available and no evidence has been brought on record that GSTR 2A was filed, the High Court held that genuineness of purchases could not be established by the petitioner. The ITC claim was denied and the orders of the Department were confirmed.

Comment: MyGST Refund

Underlining judgment said that the requirement for such businesses is to have elaborate documentation beyond invoices and e-way bills supporting the physical movement of goods. Incomplete documentation or tax invoice may deny certain ITC claims alone.

We ensure that businesses at MyGST Refund become compliance-friendly by putting together the freight records, delivery receipts, and GSTR 2A filing tracking. Our platform will simplify your GST compliance, making you eligible to avow claim ITC and removing all risk of disallowance owing to missing or incomplete records.

Id-Appeal Number: Writ Tax No. 886 of 2023
Judgment Date: August 14, 2024