Answer

1. F

   Facts

   Shaurya Alloys v State of Punjab (P and H High Court, 1 October 2026, as reported) said ITC denial cannot be mechanical, the notice must disclose material linking the buyer, and a personal hearing and reasoned order on cross-examination are needed.

2. P

   Provisions and law

   • Sec 155, CGST Act 2017The person who claims ITC has the burden of proving that the claim is genuine.
   • Sec 75(4), CGST Act 2017A personal hearing must be granted where requested in writing or where any adverse decision is contemplated.
   • Sec 74A, CGST Act 2017For FY 2024-25 onwards, one procedure for demands: notice within 42 months of the annual return due date, order within 12 months of the notice; penalty depends on whether fraud is alleged.
3. A

   Analysis

   High Court rulings bind authorities in that State and are persuasive elsewhere. Cite it for procedural points, but your facts and evidence remain the main defence. Check whether the State has appealed the ruling. Use it alongside the Supreme Court's view in Ecom Gill that the buyer must prove movement, payment and receipt.

4. C

   Conclusion

   1. 1Check whether the ruling has been appealed.
   2. 2Cite it for procedure and natural justice points.
   3. 3Lead with your evidence on facts.
   4. 4Mention the Supreme Court's standard of proof too.

General guidance from TaxSavvy’s library of money processes. Laws change; your Savvy confirms the answer on your exact case before anything is filed.