🚨📢 ITC Landmark Judgment Alert - Summary by Abhishek Raja Ram 9810638155 The Allahabad High Court holds that Section 16(2)(c) does not justify punishing a diligent purchaser without first proceeding against the defaulting supplier. The Assessee, having duly paid GST on seven Airtel recharge invoices, faced reversal of ₹28.52 lakh ITC with a penalty because the seller failed to deposit the tax. Citing Supreme Court and Madras HC rulings, the impugned orders are quashed and the matter is remitted for a fresh, seller-focused inquiry. Key Takeaways ✅ The mere non-reflection of tax in GSTR-2A is not conclusive for denying ITC when invoices and payments are genuine through Banking Channel i.e. RTGS. Section 16(2)(c) is interpreted to oblige authorities to verify seller compliance before penalising the purchaser. Remand emphasises reasoned, speaking orders and stakeholder hearings. Affirms the Supreme Court [ Asst. Commr. State Tax v. Suncraft Energy Pvt Ltd. (2023) 13 Centax 189 (SC)] and Madras High Court [D.Y. Beathel Enterprises v. STO (Data Cell) 2022 (58) GSTL 269 (Mad)] jurisprudence on purchaser protection. Offers persuasive precedent for assessees facing similar DRC-01 demands. M/s R.T. Infotech 🆚 Additional Commissioner Grade-2 [Writ Tax No. 1330/2022; dated 30-May-2025] SAve the post for future