"Jyoti Baluni is a practicing Chartered Accountant with specialization in indirect taxes, particularly GST. She has represented clients in Litigation, compliances, classification and valuation disputes and frequently contributes to professional publications. "
The case clarifies that Section 74 requires clear evidence of fraud or wilful suppression. Mere reliance on third-party alerts without independent inquiry is insufficient. The ruling protects taxpayers from mechanical and assumption-based proceedings.
The petition challenges the validity of a cess law on grounds of lack of legislative competence and arbitrariness. The Court has not ruled yet and has granted time for further submissions, keeping the issue open.
The court held that Section 74 cannot be invoked without alleging fraud or suppression. The key takeaway is that absence of jurisdictional facts invalidates GST proceedings.
The High Court held that cross-state transfer of ITC on amalgamation cannot be denied due to GST portal limitations. It ruled that statutory rights override technical restrictions.
The High Court set aside the cancellation of GST registration because the order was cryptic and lacked reasons or reference to supporting material. The Court held that cancellation orders must reflect application of mind and clearly state the grounds for such action.
The High Court held that initiating recovery through a garnishee notice before examining the taxpayer’s explanation and documents was not justified. The bank account freeze was lifted and authorities were directed to reconsider the matter after reviewing the submitted materials.
The court held that possession of a tax invoice does not automatically create ITC entitlement. Credit can be distributed only after statutory conditions under Section 16 are satisfied
The Madras High Court upheld the blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A after the Managing Director admitted availing ITC on blocked invoices during inspection. The Court ruled that such admission weakened the taxpayer’s challenge to the department’s action.
The Court ruled that personal liability under Section 89 cannot be invoked without giving the director an opportunity to prove absence of negligence. Bank attachment without notice violated natural justice.
The Supreme Court held that refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act is not payable to the applicant if tax incidence was passed on. The amount must be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
