Courts have clarified that audit limitation begins when records are made available or audit is instituted, whichever is later. Open-ended audits without valid extension are challengeable.
The Court held that ITC cannot be denied to genuine recipients solely because the supplier failed to pay tax. Section 16(2)(c) must be applied only in cases of fraud or collusion, safeguarding compliant buyers.
Courts have held that Section 130 cannot be invoked merely on suspicion or minor procedural lapses during transit. The key takeaway is that confiscation requires clear evidence of deliberate tax evasion.
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.
