- The Tripura High Court held that Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act should not block ITC in bona fide purchase transactions; it should apply only to non-bona fide or collusive cases.
- The Court said requiring buyers to verify the seller’s tax compliance creates an impossible and disproportionate burden.
- The Karnataka High Court held that the two-year deadline under Section 54 for GST refund applications is mandatory.
- However, delayed refund applicants may seek writ relief from the High Court for condonation of delay, which can also extend the department’s time to act.
Source: vaishlaw.com
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
Latest Posts in "India"
- RCM Liability, Revenue Neutrality, and Penalty Upheld Under CGST and IGST Acts
- Supreme Court Rejects Centre’s Plea to Restore ₹363 Crore GST Demand on Vodafone Idea
- GSTN Enables Appeals Against NIL or Zero Demand Orders
- Isabgol Traders Flag GST Dispute Over Conflicting State Tax Rules
- 57th GST Council Meeting Rescheduled to October 7, 2026 Amid BRICS Clash
