"My name is Prasad, and I am an experienced Income Tax and Sales Tax Practitioner with over 42 years of expertise in the field. Currently based in Mysore, I also serve as a GST Practitioner. Throughout my career, I have represented various cases before authorities in Bangalore, Mysore, and Mangalore divisions. I reside at 394 Sridhara Krupa, LIC Colony, Srirampura II Stage, Mysore - 570023. You can reach me at my mobile number 9342115018. I have successfully handled all litigation cases related to Income Tax, Service Tax, and GST before the First Appellate Authority and Tribunal, providing comprehensive support and guidance to my clients in navigating complex tax matters. Feel free to modify any part of this introduction or let me know if you need further assistance! "
Explains the shift from transaction value to MRP-based valuation under Rule 31D. Highlights how GST will now be calculated on printed retail price.
The issue was misuse of arrest powers against genuine buyers. Courts have held that coercive arrests for supplier defaults violate due process and must be restrained.
Explains how Section 74A reshapes GST penalty computation under a unified framework. Key takeaway: penalty rates remain similar, but timelines and flexibility are significantly improved.
The Court held that Section 74 SCNs lacking factual narration of fraud or suppression are deficient. The key takeaway is that numbers alone cannot justify penal proceedings.
Karnataka now has two functional GSTAT State Benches in Bengaluru. The key takeaway is that taxpayers can finally file second appeals against CGST and KGST orders.
This piece argues that although GST is architected as a technology-driven regime—based on online registration, portal filings, e-invoicing, e-way bills and bank-linked payments—field enforcement often continues with a pre-GST physical presence mindset.
Section 74 applies only where fraud or intent to evade tax is established. Vague notices based on mismatches lack jurisdiction and are unsustainable.
Courts have held that bona fide recipients cannot be penalised for supplier defaults. Using Section 64 against compliant buyers is disproportionate and legally vulnerable.
The Karnataka High Court’s GST ruling adopts the Supreme Court’s “arrest is an exception” framework for offences up to seven years, but it goes further in emphasis by treating non‑requirement of custodial interrogation in GST cases up to five years as a strong—almost default—reason to grant anticipatory bail, whereas Supreme Court precedents treat that factor […]
The Karnataka HC ruled that taxpayers accused of GST offences with maximum punishment under five years need not face mandatory custodial interrogation, even in large fake ITC cases.
