Fake Invoicing
3 articles
Masterminds Yes, Backdating No: Delhi High Court Holds Section 122(1A) CGST Reaches Non-Taxable Persons but Only for Conduct on or After 1 January 2021
Three former directors were each fined ₹24,99,88,069 personally, the same amount as the company, for an alleged circular-trading scheme. The Delhi High Court has now answered two questions that split the High Courts: who can be penalised under Section 122(1A), and for which period. Its answer favours the Revenue on the first and the assessee on the second.
13 min read629 Noticees, One Order: Delhi High Court Declines a GST Writ Challenge, Distinguishing ASP Traders on Natural Justice
When a single Order-in-Original runs to 1,881 pages and names 629 firms and individuals in an alleged fake-invoicing racket, does an individual noticee's claim that its reply was never considered open the door to a writ petition? The Delhi High Court says no — and distinguishes the Supreme Court's ASP Traders on the ground that a mass adjudication order is not the same as an unreasoned order against a single assessee.
14 min readStatement First, Cross-Examination Second: CESTAT Allahabad Invokes Section 9D of the Central Excise Act to Quash a ₹2.39 Crore Cenvat Credit Fraud Demand Against Rathi Steel and Power
A Ghaziabad steel manufacturer was one of 68 noticees accused of availing Cenvat credit on cenvatable invoices issued without any actual supply of copper scrap. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the ₹2.39 crore demand confirmed against it, holding that the adjudicating authority relied on third-party statements without following Section 9D of the Central Excise Act's mandatory procedure for admitting them in evidence, treated a co-noticee's settlement under an amnesty scheme as proof against unrelated parties, and confirmed the demand through generic findings that never engaged the appellant's own case.
14 min read