"advocate in Allahabad High Court, only dealing in GST litigation. "
The Supreme Court declined immediate intervention but expressly left open the challenge to the validity of Section 16(2) of the CGST Act. The key takeaway is that constitutional questions relating to denial of ITC due to supplier default remain unresolved.
Assessment and adjudication serve different functions under the CGST Act, with one determining tax liability and the other resolving disputes. Understanding the distinction is essential for effective GST compliance and litigation management.
The Supreme Court quashed the removal of a Mathadhipati after finding that relied-upon documents were not properly supplied and the enquiry process violated principles of natural justice. A fresh enquiry was ordered through an independent mechanism.
The taxability of forest auctioned trees depends on whether they are intended to be cut and removed. Courts and authorities have consistently held that mandatory severance converts standing trees into taxable goods.
Allahabad High Court set aside a GST refund rejection after the taxpayer was unable to upload an additional reply on the GST portal. The Court held that the portal must support supplementary replies to ensure proper adjudication and fair hearing.
The article examines how denying ITC to genuine buyers due to supplier tax default creates constitutional and commercial concerns under GST law. It argues that compliant recipients should not be penalized for failures beyond their control.
Courts held that GST offences covered under the CGST Act must follow the special procedure prescribed under the statute. Authorities cannot invoke IPC provisions to avoid mandatory safeguards like prior sanction for prosecution.
High Courts have ruled that temporary closure of business premises during a GST survey is not by itself a valid ground for cancellation of registration. Authorities must establish fraud or statutory violations with proper evidence and due process.
The analysis highlights how GST law forces recipients to pay suppliers within 180 days while still exposing them to ITC denial if suppliers default. It contends that the provision imposes an impossible burden on compliant taxpayers.
The Supreme Court affirmed that continuous non-filing of GSTR-3B despite issuing invoices and collecting GST amounts to wilful suppression under Section 74. The ruling rejects financial hardship as a defence against GST compliance failures.
