Case Studies On Gst And Tax Evasion Cases
1. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (2020)
Facts:
Mohit Minerals was accused of evading GST by under-reporting sales and issuing fake invoices for input tax credit (ITC). The tax authorities conducted raids and found discrepancies between the declared turnover and actual transactions.
Legal Issues:
Whether issuance of fake invoices without actual supply amounts to tax evasion under GST laws.
Whether ITC claimed on such invoices can be denied.
Applicability of penalties for such offences.
Judgment:
The GST Appellate Tribunal held that issuing fake invoices is a clear case of tax evasion under the CGST Act. The company was liable to pay the evaded tax along with interest and penalties. The tribunal also emphasized that ITC can be denied if the input tax credit is availed fraudulently.
Significance:
Reinforced the strict stance of GST authorities against fake invoicing and input tax credit misuse.
Established that mere issuance of invoices without supply leads to tax evasion and penalties.
Set precedent for treating fraudulent ITC claims seriously.
2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Amalgamations Repco Ltd. (2021)
Facts:
The company was caught manipulating the classification of goods to avail lower GST rates and evade higher tax. The department alleged deliberate misclassification and filed a tax evasion case.
Legal Issues:
Whether misclassification of goods to evade GST is punishable under GST laws.
Assessment of intent in tax evasion cases.
Validity of penalties imposed for fraudulent classification.
Judgment:
The Madras High Court upheld the tax demand and penalty, stating that deliberate misclassification to evade tax is an offence under GST. The court noted that intent is crucial, and evidence of misclassification with intent to evade tax justifies penalties.
Significance:
Clarified that classification disputes involving tax evasion are subject to strict penalties.
Emphasized the importance of bona fide classification supported by correct documentation.
Encouraged taxpayers to be cautious with product classification under GST.
3. M/s Classic Credit Ltd. v. Union of India (2019)
Facts:
The company was involved in a large-scale GST evasion scheme by generating fake invoices and claiming ITC on non-existent transactions. The GST department initiated prosecution and tax recovery proceedings.
Legal Issues:
Whether claims of ITC on fake invoices constitute tax evasion under GST.
Scope of prosecution and penalties in GST fraud cases.
Admissibility of electronic evidence in such cases.
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court allowed the prosecution and upheld recovery of tax along with penalties. The court also accepted electronic evidence from the GST portal and other sources as admissible under the Evidence Act.
Significance:
Highlighted the role of electronic evidence in GST investigations.
Affirmed that fraudulent ITC claims lead to criminal prosecution and penalties.
Provided procedural clarity for GST tax evasion prosecutions.
4. Commissioner of GST v. M/s. Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. (2022)
Facts:
Karvy Stock Broking was found to have evaded GST by not disclosing taxable services and under-reporting transactions in their filings. The GST authorities imposed heavy tax demands and penalties.
Legal Issues:
Liability for tax evasion by under-reporting turnover.
Applicability of penalty provisions under CGST Act.
Whether non-disclosure amounts to willful tax evasion.
Judgment:
The tribunal confirmed the tax demand and penalty, stating that intentional concealment or suppression of facts amounts to tax evasion. The burden lies on the taxpayer to explain discrepancies. Failure leads to penalty and interest.
Significance:
Strengthened tax authorities’ powers to penalize willful evasion by non-disclosure.
Set precedent on burden of proof lying with taxpayers in concealment cases.
Reinforced deterrence against turnover under-reporting.
5. In Re: M/s. Perfect Infra Engineers (GST Authority, 2020)
Facts:
This case involved a contractor claiming ITC on goods and services that were not used for business purposes, leading to GST evasion allegations.
Legal Issues:
Whether ITC claimed on non-business use goods/services amounts to evasion.
Limits and conditions on claiming ITC under GST.
Penalty for wrongful claim of ITC.
Judgment:
The GST authority held that ITC must be strictly used for business purposes and disallowed claims related to personal or non-business use. The petitioner was directed to pay the evaded tax and interest, along with penalties.
Significance:
Clarified the legitimate scope of ITC claims.
Prevented misuse of ITC provisions to evade tax.
Promoted compliance with GST input credit rules.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Issue | Outcome & Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. | Fake invoices & ITC fraud | Denial of ITC, penalties, fraud recognition |
| State of Tamil Nadu v. Amalgamations Repco Ltd. | Misclassification of goods | Penalty for deliberate misclassification |
| M/s Classic Credit Ltd. | Fake invoice ITC claims | Prosecution upheld, electronic evidence valid |
| Commissioner of GST v. Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. | Under-reporting turnover | Penalty for willful concealment |
| M/s Perfect Infra Engineers | Wrongful ITC claim | ITC denied, tax recovery, and penalty imposed |
These cases illustrate the judiciary’s increasing rigor in tackling GST tax evasion, especially in relation to input tax credit misuse, misclassification, concealment, and fake invoices, all common methods of evasion. The courts uphold procedural fairness but emphasize compliance, transparency, and accountability.
RELATED Blog
comments