Roshan Sharma Vs Deputy Commissioner of Revenue
Date: November 9, 2025
Subject Matter
Notice Issued on ITC Denial Over Seller's Cancelled Registration
Summary
The Supreme Court has issued notice in a petition challenging a High Court order that denied relief, directing the petitioner to pursue an alternative remedy. The core legal issue before the Apex Court is whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) can be denied solely because the seller's GST registration was subsequently cancelled.
Key Arguments and Court Action:
| Party | Argument/Contention | Court's Action |
| Petitioner (Buyer) | Principal Argument: ITC cannot be denied to the buyer (petitioner) merely because the seller's GST registration was cancelled, especially if the cancellation occurred after the purchase was made. | The Supreme Court acknowledged the principal argument and found it warranted consideration. |
| High Court (Impugned Order) | Denied relief, holding that the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy (approaching the Commissioner, GST). | The Supreme Court has issued notice, signifying it will examine the High Court's refusal and the substantive issue. |
| Supreme Court | Prima facie, noted the High Court's reliance on the alternative remedy doctrine. | Issued notice to the respondents, returnable on 8.12.2025, and directed service of the paper books. |
Core Legal Issue Under Consideration:
The Supreme Court will examine the scope of Input Tax Credit provisions under the GST Act, specifically addressing whether a buyer, acting on the basis of a valid GST registration at the time of purchase, can be penalized (by denial of ITC) for the subsequent failure or cancellation of the seller's registration, an issue often linked to the fulfillment of conditions under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Heard Mr. Vinay Shraff, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. Prima facie it appears that the High Court declined to grant any relief to the petitioner herein on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of going before the Commissioner, GST.
3. The principal argument of the learned counsel is that ITC cannot be denied solely on the ground that the GST registration of the seller of goods has been cancelled. In other words, goods were purchased by the petitioner herein from a particular party and the GST registration of that party has stood cancelled. In such circumstances, his submission is that the ITC, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, could not have been denied.
4. Issue notice, returnable on 8.12.2025.
5. One copy of the entire paper books shall be served to Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharya, the learned counsel, who ordinarily appears for the State of West Bengal.