The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's order allowing ITC, holding that the purchasing dealer had discharged its burden under Section 155 by producing invoices, e-way bills, bilty, bank statements, and evidence of raw material consumption.
The GSTAT Agra Bench has dismissed the Revenue's appeal against M/s Hema Industries, upholding the First Appellate Authority's order that set aside the reversal of ITC availed on purchases from a supplier whose registration was subsequently cancelled. [Devendra Singh v. Hema Industries]
Member (Judicial) Ajeet Singh held that the purchasing dealer successfully discharged its burden under Section 155 by supplying tax invoices, e-way bills, bilty, bank transaction statements, and evidence of raw material consumption in finished padlock goods. The department, on the other hand, failed to show complicity or collusion of the purchasing dealer with the supplier.
The Tribunal observed that a bona fide taxpayer cannot be penalised for the post-transaction disappearance of the supplier when the transaction was entered into in good faith with a registered entity. This is the latest in a consistent line of rulings from the Agra and Lucknow Benches protecting genuine buyers from Section 74 demands based solely on supplier-side investigations.
2026-juristway.com-3060-GSTAT(Agra)-GST
