The article questions the use of Section 74 for mere reconciliation differences between Form 26AS and GSTR-1. The key takeaway is that fraud provisions require evidence of deliberate tax evasion, not routine mismatches.
The article examines how NGTP classifications are increasingly being used as standalone grounds for ITC blockage and fraud proceedings against genuine taxpayers. It underscores that statutory action must be supported by tangible evidence rather than backend labels or assumptions.
Section 54(3) permits refund of unutilised ITC for zero-rated supplies and inverted duty structures. The key takeaway is that refund entitlement flows from the statute and cannot be curtailed beyond prescribed exclusions.
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether GST show cause notices covering multiple financial years are legally valid. The outcome will determine whether departments must issue separate year-wise notices or can continue consolidated proceedings.
The Supreme Court has kept open the constitutional challenge to Section 16(2)(c), which links ITC eligibility to supplier tax payment. The key takeaway is that bona fide buyers may still have a chance to challenge ITC denial based on supplier defaults.
The High Court held that using Input Tax Credit for the mandatory 10% GST appeal pre-deposit is not a criminal act. It ruled that professional advice given within the framework of GST law cannot be prosecuted as cheating or conspiracy.
GST disputes often begin with scrutiny notices rather than investigations. A structured response at every stage can help taxpayers avoid costly demands, penalties, and litigation.
A comprehensive review of GSTs evolution from launch to a data-driven enforcement regime. The article explains how ITC restrictions, analytics-based actions, and digital compliance have tested principles of fairness and due process.
A genuine dealer can only be expected to prove his own purchase, receipt, and sale of goods. Allegations against a supplier’s supplier do not automatically justify confiscation, ITC denial, or fraud proceedings.
The article explains that Section 67(4) permits sealing only for facilitating GST searches where access is denied, not for indefinite business closure. Courts have stressed proportionality and timely de-sealing to protect business operations.
