Facts: Appellant, a registered dealer, claimed input tax credit (ITC) under WBGST Act for the financial year 2017-18. Some invoices from the supplier were not reflected in the appellant's GSTR 2A. Assistant Commissioner issued notices for ITC recovery without investigating the supplier. The appellant challenged the order, claiming fulfillment of ITC conditions.
Decision: The court held that the appellant fulfilled ITC eligibility conditions under Section 16(2) of the Act. Referring to the Bharti Airtel Ltd. case, the court clarified the role of Form GSTR-2A as a facilitator for self-assessment. The court set aside the order of recovery and directed action against the supplier before proceeding against the appellant, except under exceptional circumstances.

Facts: Appellant, a registered dealer, claimed input tax credit (ITC) under WBGST Act for the financial year 2017-18. Some invoices from the supplier were not reflected in the appellant's GSTR 2A. Assistant Commissioner issued notices for ITC recovery without investigating the supplier. The appellant challenged the order, claiming fulfillment of ITC conditions.
Decision: The court held that the appellant fulfilled ITC eligibility conditions under Section 16(2) of the Act. Referring to the Bharti Airtel Ltd. case, the court clarified the role of Form GSTR-2A as a facilitator for self-assessment. The court set aside the order of recovery and directed action against the supplier before proceeding against the appellant, except under exceptional circumstances.

Facts: Appellant, a registered dealer, claimed input tax credit (ITC) under WBGST Act for the financial year 2017-18. Some invoices from the supplier were not reflected in the appellant's GSTR 2A. Assistant Commissioner issued notices for ITC recovery without investigating the supplier. The appellant challenged the order, claiming fulfillment of ITC conditions.
Decision: The court held that the appellant fulfilled ITC eligibility conditions under Section 16(2) of the Act. Referring to the Bharti Airtel Ltd. case, the court clarified the role of Form GSTR-2A as a facilitator for self-assessment. The court set aside the order of recovery and directed action against the supplier before proceeding against the appellant, except under exceptional circumstances.

Facts: Appellant, a registered dealer, claimed input tax credit (ITC) under WBGST Act for the financial year 2017-18. Some invoices from the supplier were not reflected in the appellant's GSTR 2A. Assistant Commissioner issued notices for ITC recovery without investigating the supplier. The appellant challenged the order, claiming fulfillment of ITC conditions.
Decision: The court held that the appellant fulfilled ITC eligibility conditions under Section 16(2) of the Act. Referring to the Bharti Airtel Ltd. case, the court clarified the role of Form GSTR-2A as a facilitator for self-assessment. The court set aside the order of recovery and directed action against the supplier before proceeding against the appellant, except under exceptional circumstances.

Facts: Appellant, a registered dealer, claimed input tax credit (ITC) under WBGST Act for the financial year 2017-18. Some invoices from the supplier were not reflected in the appellant's GSTR 2A. Assistant Commissioner issued notices for ITC recovery without investigating the supplier. The appellant challenged the order, claiming fulfillment of ITC conditions.
Decision: The court held that the appellant fulfilled ITC eligibility conditions under Section 16(2) of the Act. Referring to the Bharti Airtel Ltd. case, the court clarified the role of Form GSTR-2A as a facilitator for self-assessment. The court set aside the order of recovery and directed action against the supplier before proceeding against the appellant, except under exceptional circumstances.

Facts: Appellant, a registered dealer, claimed input tax credit (ITC) under WBGST Act for the financial year 2017-18. Some invoices from the supplier were not reflected in the appellant's GSTR 2A. Assistant Commissioner issued notices for ITC recovery without investigating the supplier. The appellant challenged the order, claiming fulfillment of ITC conditions.
Decision: The court held that the appellant fulfilled ITC eligibility conditions under Section 16(2) of the Act. Referring to the Bharti Airtel Ltd. case, the court clarified the role of Form GSTR-2A as a facilitator for self-assessment. The court set aside the order of recovery and directed action against the supplier before proceeding against the appellant, except under exceptional circumstances.