<?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>Wilful Default, Mechanical Adjudication and the GST State - Lessons from Dharmendra Kalra v. Kulvinder Singh Bhatia By Adv. G. Jayaprakash(Former Central Excise Officer)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=16456</link>
    <description>Wilful default and mechanical adjudication cannot be assumed from procedural lapse alone; the enquiry must focus on whether the conduct was deliberate, contumacious, and unsupported by bona fide explanation. In GST adjudication, expressions such as suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement, and intent to evade are jurisdictional prerequisites, not ornamental drafting. Non-payment, return mismatch, delayed compliance, or non-appearance do not by themselves establish evasion, and legal uncertainty or bona fide disputes may indicate only procedural irregularity. Before invoking the stricter consequences associated with section 74, authorities must examine service, opportunity, disclosure, substantial compliance, and conscious intent to evade tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:55 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Wilful Default, Mechanical Adjudication and the GST State - Lessons from Dharmendra Kalra v. Kulvinder Singh Bhatia By Adv. G. Jayaprakash(Former Central Excise Officer)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=16456</link>
      <description>Wilful default and mechanical adjudication cannot be assumed from procedural lapse alone; the enquiry must focus on whether the conduct was deliberate, contumacious, and unsupported by bona fide explanation. In GST adjudication, expressions such as suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement, and intent to evade are jurisdictional prerequisites, not ornamental drafting. Non-payment, return mismatch, delayed compliance, or non-appearance do not by themselves establish evasion, and legal uncertainty or bona fide disputes may indicate only procedural irregularity. Before invoking the stricter consequences associated with section 74, authorities must examine service, opportunity, disclosure, substantial compliance, and conscious intent to evade tax.</description>
      <category>Articles</category>
      <law>Goods and Services Tax - GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:55 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=16456</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>