Section 76 allows recovery of GST collected but not remitted, with equal penalty and interest. Courts are urging authorities to act against defaulting suppliers instead of penalising recipients.
Section 75 strictly regulates GST adjudication, ensuring orders stay within SCN scope and follow natural justice. Courts have reinforced that excess demand or procedural shortcuts are invalid.
Section 74A introduces a single GST demand provision for fraud and non-fraud cases from FY 2024-25 onwards. Authorities can no longer issue notices under Sections 73 or 74 for these periods.
Courts clarify that ITC can be blocked only on recorded “reasons to believe” supported by concrete evidence. Mere suspicion or supplier default is insufficient to invoke Rule 86A.
Under GST, the burden of proof falls on the recipient mainly when they claim input tax credit (ITC); this is codified in section 155 and refined by recent court rulings that also protect bona fide buyers from impossible burdens. 1. Statutory basis – when does burden fall on the recipient? Section 155 – specific rule […]
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.
