SimplifiTax - Tax, Accounting & Financial Advisory

Case Details: Krupa Jewellers vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax - [2025] 178 taxmann.com 662 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Aravind Kumar & N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
Ashutosh Dave, Pradhuman Gohil, Ms Hetvi Ketan Patel, Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Rushabh N. Kapadia, Ms Taniya Bansal, Advs.& Mrs Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR for the Petitioner

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a registered person under the Gujarat GST Act, challenged an order passed by the jurisdictional officer under CGST disallowing input tax credit (ITC) on the ground of non-existent suppliers. Upon scrutiny of returns, the revenue authority concluded that ITC had been wrongly availed by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The petitioner filed a reply enclosing ledger copies, purchase invoices, and proof of payment to suppliers, contending that purchases were made prior to the suo moto cancellation of supplier registrations. It was further submitted that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice, as relevant documents were not furnished, and that the proceeding lacked jurisdiction in absence of fraud or suppression. The petitioner emphasized that the goods purchased were precious metals and that all statutory conditions for availing ITC under section 16 had been satisfied. The High Court had held that the jurisdictional officer had considered the petitioner’s reply, including bank records and purchase ledgers, and specifically found that the petitioner failed to establish actual movement of goods, as required under Rule 138 of the CGST Rules. Citing the availability of a statutory appellate remedy, the court declined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner then filed an SLP before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Held

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the special leave petition and dismissed it accordingly, while granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all grounds before the appellate authority, which shall adjudicate the matter independently and uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.