<?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>2025 (4) TMI 676 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768762</link>
    <description>Gujarat HC dismissed petition challenging proceedings under GST Act sections 74 and 122. Petitioners allegedly formed syndicate creating bogus firms to fraudulently avail input tax credit worth Rs.4,34,16,381 through fake invoices from 67+ suppliers without actual goods supply during August 2017-September 2020. Court held petitioners&#039; common reply constituted static admission of involvement in syndicate operations. Proceedings against co-noticees valid as they aided taxable person in revenue fraud. Petitioners failed to deny role with creation firms or challenge specific allegations. Bombay HC precedent in Shantanu Hundekari distinguished on facts involving different circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2025 10:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=813867" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 676 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768762</link>
      <description>Gujarat HC dismissed petition challenging proceedings under GST Act sections 74 and 122. Petitioners allegedly formed syndicate creating bogus firms to fraudulently avail input tax credit worth Rs.4,34,16,381 through fake invoices from 67+ suppliers without actual goods supply during August 2017-September 2020. Court held petitioners&#039; common reply constituted static admission of involvement in syndicate operations. Proceedings against co-noticees valid as they aided taxable person in revenue fraud. Petitioners failed to deny role with creation firms or challenge specific allegations. Bombay HC precedent in Shantanu Hundekari distinguished on facts involving different circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>