<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (12) TMI 1224 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763644</link>
    <description>The MP HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice issued under sections 74 and 122 of CGST Act, 2017 for fake input tax credit generation. The court found that five firms were involved in circular trading from 2017-2022 to inflate turnover and obtain higher bank loans while availing fraudulent ITC. The HC held that joint assessment of all six companies was necessary given the interconnected nature of the circular trading scheme. Since only the petitioner challenged the notice while four other companies did not approach the court, the petitioner could not be singled out from the assessment proceedings. The court ruled the show-cause notice was validly issued and joint assessment under section 74 was required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=784208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 1224 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763644</link>
      <description>The MP HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice issued under sections 74 and 122 of CGST Act, 2017 for fake input tax credit generation. The court found that five firms were involved in circular trading from 2017-2022 to inflate turnover and obtain higher bank loans while availing fraudulent ITC. The HC held that joint assessment of all six companies was necessary given the interconnected nature of the circular trading scheme. Since only the petitioner challenged the notice while four other companies did not approach the court, the petitioner could not be singled out from the assessment proceedings. The court ruled the show-cause notice was validly issued and joint assessment under section 74 was required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>