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.
