GST Registration Cancelled as Supplier Was Non-Existent | Bombay HC

Case Details: Afzal Husain Altaf Husain Saiyed vs. Union of India - [2025] 175 taxmann.com 1027 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
• Pradeep Purohit for the Petitioner.
• Karan Adik, Parimal Wagh & SD Deshpande for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner’s registration under the CGST Act and the Maharashtra GST Act was cancelled on the ground that Input Tax Credit had been availed without any genuine transactions of purchase or sale, as several major suppliers were found to be non-existent upon physical verification of their principal place of business. The petitioner had undertaken before the authorities to furnish all relevant documents in support of the genuineness of the transactions but failed to submit any documentary evidence. It was found that no credible records were produced to substantiate the claim that actual supplies had occurred. The authorities recorded that the suppliers were not found at their declared places of business and that the transactions appeared fictitious. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order, and the matter was accordingly placed before the Bombay High Court.

High Court Held

The Bombay High Court held that there were concurrent findings of fact by both authorities that the suppliers in question were found to be non-existent on physical verification. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to furnish any documentary evidence before the authorities to establish that the transactions of purchase and sale were genuine. It was held that the claim of Input Tax Credit was not supported by any verifiable documentation and was therefore bogus. The Court further noted that no perversity had been demonstrated in the findings of the lower authorities and hence no interference with the cancellation order was warranted.

List of Cases Reviewed

• State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading (P.) Ltd. [2023] 148 taxmann.com 352/72 GSTL 134 (SC) (para 8). followed

List of Cases Referred to

• State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading (P.) Ltd. [2023] 148 taxmann.com 352/72 GSTL 134 (SC) (para 8).