The article explains that High Courts require proper notice, recorded reasons, and application of mind before GST registration can be cancelled retrospectively under Section 29(2).
The article explains how BNSS governs arrest, bail, and trial procedures, while Section 132 of the CGST Act prescribes GST offences and punishments.
The article explains why retrospective GST cancellation alone should not result in ITC denial where buyers have complied with Section 16(2) and maintained records.
Explains why courts favour a holistic assessment of evidence and caution against denying ITC solely because old supporting documents are unavailable.
Courts held that Section 62 best judgment assessments lose effect once valid returns are filed and tax dues are paid, requiring the department to follow regular assessment.
The Madras High Court emphasized that Section 74 requires clear evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression and cannot be invoked merely because of turnover mismatches or procedural discrepancies.
The article explains that Section 155 requires taxpayers to prove their own ITC eligibility, not guarantee their suppliers’ tax compliance or future conduct.
High Courts have held that GST registration cannot be cancelled through mechanical or checkbox-style orders. Authorities must disclose statutory grounds, consider the taxpayer’s reply, and provide clear reasons.
The article explains that retrospective cancellation of a supplier’s GST registration cannot, by itself, justify denial of input tax credit. Courts have emphasized that authorities must prove non-genuine transactions or buyer collusion before reversing ITC.
This article examines how repeated GST summons by multiple authorities for the same records can create unnecessary hardship for bona fide taxpayers. It explains why better coordination, procedural fairness, and disciplined use of Section 70 are essential for effective tax administration.
