Courts have repeatedly held that bona fide purchasers cannot lose Input Tax Credit merely because suppliers failed to deposit GST or later became non-compliant. Genuine transactions supported by invoices and banking records remain protected.
The Allahabad High Court granted bail in a GST fake ITC case after noting that investigation was complete, the complaint had been filed, and trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception in offences carrying a maximum five-year sentence.
Karnataka High Court observed that the department wrongly construed the term “may” as mandatory while rejecting the waiver application filed under Section 128A of the CGST Act.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court judgment holding that challenges to GST adjudication proceedings should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory appeal mechanism.
The Madras High Court remitted the GST matter for fresh adjudication after the taxpayer agreed to deposit 50% of the disputed tax amount. The Court also directed reconsideration of the reply and supporting documents on merits.
ITAT Bangalore held that sale of 25 plots did not amount to an adventure in the nature of trade because the properties were held for six years as investments. The Tribunal ruled that mere multiplicity of plots sold cannot by itself convert capital gains into business income.
Allahabad High Court held that proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act cannot be initiated without prior determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. The confiscation notice and order were quashed as without jurisdiction.
The petitioner argued that the GST notice was issued by an officer lacking lawful authority, but the Rajasthan High Court held that such issues should first be agitated through the statutory appellate remedy.
The High Court ruled that disputes regarding stock calculation methods and seizure proceedings under Sections 122 and 130 of the GST Act could not be decided in writ jurisdiction due to disputed facts.
The Tribunal held that joint ownership alone cannot restrict Section 54 deduction where the entire source of investment for the new residential property originated from the assessee.
