CA.(Dr.) Arun Ahuja

Landmark SC Judgement on Input Credit Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "The State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading (P.) Ltd. [2023] 148 taxmann.com 352. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "In fact, the genuineness of the transaction has to be proved as the burden to prove the genuineness of transaction would be upon the purchasing dealer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and held that mere production of the invoices and/or payment by cheque is not sufficient and cannot be said to be proving the burden." Even the said judgement pertains to VAT regime, but it seems that principle for establishing the genuineness of the transactions has been settled vide this judgment. If the above-mentioned supreme Court order is applicable to GST also, then as per the observation of Hon'ble SC, the dealer claiming ITC has to prove beyond the doubt, the genuineness of the transaction and actual physical movement of goods. As pe the said judgment, ...

 GST: Hassles with the ITC… never-ending story…. GST was executed to draw clarity to the system and prevent cascading effects of the taxes and seamless flow of the ITC. However, even after more than five years, the seamless flow of tax credits has turned into a pipe dream for taxpayers. We now have to contend with, amongst others: The supplier files correct invoice level data in GSTR-1 and in a timely manner Payment to suppliers to be made within 180 days Tax credit on advances paid for services to be taken only after completion of services Reconciliation of unmatched credits as per GSTR-2B and following up with suppliers for appropriate rectifications Credits in GSTR-2B are marked as blocked by Government for various reasons The limitation period for taking tax credits pertaining to a financial year Blocked credits in terms of provisions of the CGST Act including apportionment of common credits towards exempt supplies Ambiguities surrounding "personal consumption" and "...