Explains why general ITC entitlement under Section 16(1) is curtailed by specific blocks in Section 17(5), and how courts reconcile both within GST’s value-added framework.
Courts hold that retrospective cancellation of a supplier’s registration alone is insufficient to deny ITC. Authorities must prove lack of transaction genuineness or buyer collusion.
This explains how ITC is wrongly denied when suppliers default or face retrospective cancellation. The key takeaway is that bona fide buyers cannot be penalized without proof of collusion.
This article examines how GST enforcement shifts the burden of supplier failures onto bona fide buyers. The key takeaway is that courts consistently hold recovery must be made from defaulting suppliers, not compliant recipients.
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.
