The Tribunal remanded the matter, holding that neither the original authority nor the appellate authority had adequately examined the documentary evidence on actual receipt of goods.
The GSTAT Lucknow Bench has allowed a Revenue appeal by way of remand in the case of M/s Deepak Lamination, where ITC of ₹67,500 was availed on invoices issued by M/s M.H. Enterprises — a firm found non-existent during an SIB investigation. [Kunwar Mrityunjay v. M/s Deepak Lamination]
Members Narendra Kumar (Judicial) and Alok Chopra (Technical) held that the First Appellate Authority had confined itself to whether the supplier's GST registration was active on the portal — a relevant but not determinative factor. The authority failed to give proper weightage to the critical question of actual movement of goods under Section 16(2)(b).
The Tribunal extensively cited the Gujarat High Court in Maruti Enterprises v. Union of India and the Jaipur High Court in Sumetco Alloys v. Union of India, both holding that Section 16(2) conditions — clauses (a) through (d) — must be read conjointly, not independently. Mere satisfaction of one clause does not dispense with the others.
The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after proper verification of tax invoices, e-way bills, transportation documents, and other corroborative material.
2026-juristway.com-3033-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST | GSTAT Lucknow | APL/89/LCK/2026 | 16.10.2026
