https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784629 The dominant issue was whether s.16(2)(c) CGST Act, 2017 (ITC contingent on supplier's tax payment) is unconstitutional and whether ITC can be denied to a bona fide purchaser when the supplier defaults. The HC held that the provision, if applied to penalize a purchaser who has paid tax to the supplier and complied with statutory precautions, would impose disproportionate and impossible burdens, engaging Art. 14 concerns; however, it upheld the provision's validity by reading it down to operate only where the underlying transaction is non-bona fide, collusive, or fraudulent to defraud revenue. Consequently, denial of ITC to the bona fide purchaser was held impermissible and the impugned order was set aside; the petition was allowed in part. en-us Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:15:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784629 The dominant issue was whether s.16(2)(c) CGST Act, 2017 (ITC contingent on supplier's tax payment) is unconstitutional and whether ITC can be denied to a bona fide purchaser when the supplier defaults. The HC held that the provision, if applied to penalize a purchaser who has paid tax to the supplier and complied with statutory precautions, would impose disproportionate and impossible burdens, engaging Art. 14 concerns; however, it upheld the provision's validity by reading it down to operate only where the underlying transaction is non-bona fide, collusive, or fraudulent to defraud revenue. Consequently, denial of ITC to the bona fide purchaser was held impermissible and the impugned order was set aside; the petition was allowed in part. Case-Laws GST Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784629