Goods and Services Tax : A supplier cannot issue a GST credit note merely because the buyer has not paid the invoice. The proper remedy is to document the ...
Goods and Services Tax : The article explains how mandatory IMS and the Zero-Mismatch Policy require taxpayers to verify invoices before claiming ITC, maki...
Goods and Services Tax : The article explains how IMS makes accepted invoice records the basis for ITC eligibility, strengthening compliance, fraud detecti...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that retrospective cancellation of a supplier's GST registration alone is insufficient to deny ITC. Aut...
Goods and Services Tax : The article explains why retrospective GST cancellation alone should not result in ITC denial where buyers have complied with Sect...
Goods and Services Tax : Representation addressed to Union Finance Minister, GST Council and CBIC seeks legislative and administrative relief for bona fide...
Goods and Services Tax : Authorities uncovered fraudulent ITC claims based on fake invoices without actual supply of goods or services. The accused was arr...
Goods and Services Tax : Authorities uncovered fraudulent ITC claims exceeding ₹8 crore without actual supply of goods. The ruling highlights that ITC is...
Goods and Services Tax : CGST Delhi South arrested a director for allegedly availing ₹6.53 crore in fraudulent ITC based on bogus invoices worth ₹36.28...
Goods and Services Tax : Government advisories revised the IMS process to stop unfair tax escalation on credit note rejection. The key takeaway is balanced...
Income Tax : Where unaccounted sales were established through seized material, only the net profit embedded therein was liable to tax, and not ...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court set aside certain GST orders after holding that DRC-01 notice should have preceded adjudication following the ea...
Goods and Services Tax : Odisha AAR held that questions relating to refund of accumulated ITC under Section 54(3) are not maintainable under the advance ru...
Goods and Services Tax : The High Court granted regular bail in a GST fraud prosecution after noting that the investigation had been completed, the complai...
Goods and Services Tax : The SC declined to interfere with the High Court ruling that Rule 86A cannot be used to create a negative Electronic Credit Ledger...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTN has launched a standardized Annexure-B Offline Utility for refund applications involving accumulated ITC to enable automated ...
Goods and Services Tax : The portal will restrict GSTR-3B filing if ITC reclaims exceed ledger balances. The key takeaway is mandatory correction of excess...
Goods and Services Tax : The Delhi government allows registered taxpayers to rectify GST orders where previously denied ITC is now eligible under section 1...
Goods and Services Tax : Rajasthan GST circular directs officers to reject Input Tax Credit claims for taxpayers who register after 30 days from becoming l...
Goods and Services Tax : Learn about the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Department's new directive on verifying and rejecting Input Tax Credit claims for busin...
The case involved denial of ITC based on limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. The Court held that the retrospective amendment introducing Section 16(5) allowed ITC within an extended timeline. It ruled that orders rejecting ITC solely on limitation grounds were unsustainable.
The dispute arose due to mechanical application of Rule 86B by tax authorities. It was held that satisfying exception criteria allows full ITC usage without cash payment. The key takeaway is that awareness of exceptions prevents unnecessary financial burden.
The Authority ruled that questions on ITC set-off procedures fall outside the scope of advance ruling. Applications on procedural aspects are not admissible under Section 97.
The case confirms that an increase in ITC must result in price reduction for buyers. The Tribunal found profiteering where such benefit was not passed on, directing refund with interest.
The Court ruled that recovery under Section 75(12) cannot be used where wrongful ITC utilisation is alleged. It held that such cases require adjudication under Sections 73 or 74 before recovery action.
The Court examined allegations of fraudulent ITC claims and found that the petitioner’s actions were bona fide. It held that no offence was established and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.
The court held that seizure and prohibition orders cannot continue without a confiscation proposal. The absence of such proceedings led to quashing of the orders.
The court held that jurisdiction existed when the order was passed post-circular. It upheld penalties for fraudulent ITC and fake invoices, rejecting the jurisdiction challenge.
The High Court held that ITC claims for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 remain valid if returns were filed before 30 November 2021 under the amended Section 16(5).
GSTAT accepted the DGAP investigation finding that the developer retained additional ITC benefit after GST introduction. The amount must be passed on to buyers with interest.
