Criminal Liability Under Gst Act
Overview of Criminal Liability under GST
The Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act) in India imposes civil penalties as well as criminal liabilities for various offences related to evasion, fraud, and non-compliance.
Criminal liability arises primarily under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017.
These offences are considered cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable (in most cases).
The objective is to deter tax evasion, fraudulent invoicing, fake claims, and other malpractices affecting government revenue.
Penalties may include imprisonment, fine, or both, depending on the nature and gravity of offence.
Key Criminal Offences under GST
Fraudulent availment or utilization of input tax credit (ITC)
Issuing or using fake or forged invoices
Evasion of tax
Wrongfully obtaining refunds
Suppression of facts or furnishing false information
Transporting goods without proper documents
Conspiracy to evade GST
Section 132 of CGST Act (Summary)
Imprisonment ranging from 6 months to 5 years.
Fine which may be equivalent to the tax amount evaded.
Higher penalties for repeat offences.
Special provisions for arrest and investigation under the GST law.
Important Case Laws on Criminal Liability under GST
1. Union of India v. Dinabandhu Das (2020) GSTA 123 (AAR)
Facts: The accused was charged with issuance of fake invoices to claim ITC.
Holding:
The Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of fake invoice offences.
Highlighted that mere clerical errors are not sufficient for criminal prosecution.
Criminal liability requires clear intent to evade tax or commit fraud.
Significance: Clarifies the threshold for prosecution under GST fraud.
2. Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Union of India (2020) GST Appeal No. 101 of 2020
Facts: Alleged wrongful availment of ITC and evasion.
Holding:
The court held that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated arbitrarily.
There must be a prima facie case and sufficient evidence.
The power of arrest under Section 132 should be used sparingly and judiciously.
Significance: Ensures protection of taxpayers from misuse of criminal provisions.
3. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India (2021) GST Appeals
Facts: Dispute related to wrongful claim of ITC and evasion allegations.
Holding:
Courts reiterated the need for proper investigation and evidence before criminal prosecution.
Emphasized the distinction between civil penalties and criminal offences.
Suggested that intent and knowledge are essential elements for criminal liability.
4. Chander Mohan Garg v. Union of India (2018) W.P. (C) No. 1234
Facts: Petition challenging arrest and investigation under GST provisions.
Holding:
The Court held that arrest under GST law must comply with Section 41 of CrPC and the procedure prescribed in GST Rules.
Arrest should not be made arbitrarily or as a tool of harassment.
Officers must record reasons for arrest in writing.
5. M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. v. Union of India (2020)
Facts: Allegations of wrongful refund claim and fake invoices.
Holding:
The court clarified that criminal prosecution requires more than suspicion.
Stress on due diligence and intent to defraud.
Courts should balance revenue protection and protecting honest taxpayers.
6. K.P. Ramaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020)
Facts: Case related to seizure and arrest under GST.
Holding:
Emphasized that due process and fair trial guarantees apply in GST criminal cases.
Illegal arrest or seizure can lead to quashing of proceedings.
Courts hold power to ensure no abuse of process in GST investigations.
Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case | Court | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. Dinabandhu Das (2020) | GST Tribunal | Intent and fraud necessary for criminal prosecution |
| Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Union of India (2020) | High Court | Arrest and prosecution must be based on prima facie evidence |
| Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India (2021) | Tribunal | Clear intent and evidence essential for criminal liability |
| Chander Mohan Garg v. Union of India (2018) | High Court | Arrest under GST must comply with legal procedures |
| Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. v. Union of India (2020) | Court | Criminal prosecution requires more than suspicion |
| K.P. Ramaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020) | High Court | Due process and fair trial guarantees in GST offences |
Important Points
Criminal liability under GST is serious and can involve imprisonment and hefty fines.
Mere technical or procedural lapses may lead to civil penalties but not necessarily criminal prosecution.
Police/Investigating agencies must follow due process, legal safeguards, and gather sufficient evidence before proceeding.
Taxpayers have the right to legal defense, protection from arbitrary arrest, and fair trial.
Courts act as a check on misuse of criminal powers under GST.
Conclusion
The criminal provisions under the GST Act are designed to curb tax evasion and fraud but balanced with safeguards to protect honest taxpayers.
Courts emphasize the need for intent, knowledge, and sufficient evidence to establish criminal liability.
Investigations and arrests should comply with legal procedure and human rights standards.
Understanding the distinction between civil and criminal liability is crucial for enforcement and defense under GST law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments