The Allahabad High Court held that ITC cannot be blocked merely on suspicion or another officer’s recommendation under Rule 86A. The ruling stresses independent application of mind and proper reasoning before freezing GST credit.
You Already Filed One Refund Application… So You Cannot File Another?” Bombay High Court Says GST Law Does Not Work That Way Summary: The Bombay High Court in the case relating to GST refund claims held that Section 54 of the CGST Act does not prohibit filing a second refund application for the same quarter where […]
The issue was whether GST demand can exceed the show cause notice. The court held that such expansion violates Section 75(7) and must be corrected.
The Court held that payments to pigmy agents qualify as employee wages, not taxable services. As a result, GST under reverse charge does not apply.
The authority held that oxygen supply through installed infrastructure is a composite supply of goods. The key takeaway is that principal supply determines GST classification.
The Court held that invoking Section 74 without alleging fraud or suppression makes the notice invalid. The key takeaway is that proper allegations are mandatory for serious GST proceedings.
The Court held that blocking ITC without giving the taxpayer an opportunity to respond violates natural justice. It ruled that Rule 86A powers must follow due process and cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
The court held that once investigation is complete and evidence is secured, continued custody is not justified. Bail can be granted even in high-value GST fraud cases.
This article explains how issuing a consignment note decides whether a business qualifies as a GTA. The key takeaway is that absence of this document changes GST liability completely.
The Court held that absence of recorded “reason to believe” invalidates seizure under GST law. Cash seizure without proper justification was declared unlawful.
