https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=16361 Section 122(1A) is analysed as requiring retention of benefit from the specified transaction and conduct of that transaction at the instance of the person sought to be penalised. Mere association, corporate designation, or general allegations of involvement are considered insufficient without material proving actual benefit and a decisive role. In fake-invoice and wrongful input tax credit cases, liability under Sections 74 and 132 is presented as requiring an individualised inquiry into unlawful gain, control and intent rather than uniform attribution across all participants. en-us Wed, 06 May 2026 08:33:33 +0530 Wed, 06 May 2026 08:33:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=16361 Section 122(1A) is analysed as requiring retention of benefit from the specified transaction and conduct of that transaction at the instance of the person sought to be penalised. Mere association, corporate designation, or general allegations of involvement are considered insufficient without material proving actual benefit and a decisive role. In fake-invoice and wrongful input tax credit cases, liability under Sections 74 and 132 is presented as requiring an individualised inquiry into unlawful gain, control and intent rather than uniform attribution across all participants. Articles Goods and Services Tax - GST Wed, 06 May 2026 08:33:33 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=16361