Legality of Retrospective Taxation

In an interesting interface of fiscal law provisions with constitutional law tenets, a recently reported decision of the Karnataka High Court in context of ‘Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015’ [Black Money law] is the talk of the town. Failure to disclose any foreign asset was made punishable under the Black Money law. Criminal action was initiated against various parties who owned foreign assets but did not report them as such assets did not exist when the law was enacted. Examining the challenge, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings holding that Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India – which grants protection from ex post facto criminal prosecution – will apply in its full vigour to injunct application of Black Money law to past cases. In essence, the High Court has declared the criminal law related provisions to be prospective in operation. Following judicial precedents to the effect that “the object of Article 20 of the Constitution is law in force, actually in force and not a law deemed to be in force”, the High Court has declared that the deeming fiction in the Black Money law making it retrospective cannot operate in the wake of constitutional prohibition against conviction for actions which took place before the law came into force. The High Court has summarised the legal position to state; “Non-disclosure of an assessment of the tax return for the year 2007-08 or 2009-10 cannot be used to criminally prosecute these petitioners, for an act that has come into force in the year 2015. The law, as on the date alleged, was not the law of such disclosure of assessment. Therefore, the criminal law cannot be set into motion against the petitioners in the aforesaid facts of the case, as it cannot pass muster of Article 20 of the Constitution of India.”   #ExPostFactoLaws #CriminalAction #TaxLaw #TaxLaws #ConstitutionalProtection #TaxEvasion #TaxEnforcement [Crm.P. 101368/2019 dt. 07.06.2019]

𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗚𝗦𝗧 𝗯𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗮 𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗯 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 — 𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀? ☑️ 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬: • The Indian Medical Association – Kerala State Branch (IMA) runs various welfare schemes (social security, health, legal aid, pensions) for its member-doctors.   • In 2021, an amendment to the GST law (Section 7(1)(aa), CGST Act) retrospectively (from July 1, 2017) deemed clubs and members as separate persons — to tax these services.   • Based on this, IMA was served notices with GST demands, interest, penalties, and personal liability on past office bearers. ☑️𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: 𝐊𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐚 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐒𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐍𝐎 In a significant ruling (W.A. No. 1659/2024, April 2025), the Court: 1. 𝙎𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙠 𝙙𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙚𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙨 𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡. ⏺️ Held that Section 7(1)(aa), Section 2(17)(e), and the Explanation violate Article 246A and 366(12A) of the Constitution. ⏺️ Parliament cannot expand its taxing power through legal fiction in a statute. 2. 𝙍𝙚𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙢𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙋𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙈𝙪𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮. ⏺️ A club and its members are one and the same — there is no “supply” between them. ⏺️ The amendment destroys mutuality, which the Constitution protects. 3. 𝘾𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙮 𝙖𝙧𝙗𝙞𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙧𝙮. ⏺️ Demanding tax from 2017 when the law was introduced in 2021 is unfair. ⏺️ Violates constitutional and fundamental rights of citizens. ☑️𝐁𝐎𝐍𝐔𝐒: 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐚 𝐂𝐥𝐮𝐛 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 – 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐒𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐇𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐬 The 2019 Supreme Court ruling in Calcutta Club v. Union of India held: ✅ Clubs and associations cannot be taxed for services to members — because of mutuality. ✅ Even the 46th Constitutional Amendment only covered goods, not services. ✅ So service tax was invalid, and now, GST can’t override that without a constitutional amendment. The Kerala High Court reinforced that this principle remains unchanged — and unshakeable. ☑️ 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬: This is a massive win for hundreds of associations — from professional bodies and chambers to cooperative groups — all of whom exist for the benefit of their members. Do you think laws should go back in time to make retrospective amendments to collect taxes? Or should fairness and intention matter more than revenue? Let’s discuss in comments. #GST #KeralaHighCourt #Mutuality #ClubTaxation

🔎Cairn v India (part I post)- one of the largest investor-state tax related arbitration dispute to date - reveals why: ➲ calling changes in tax law as "clarificatory" by the authors of such changes often create a smoke-screen to the illegal retroactive negative tax consequences (cf. para. 3 of ATAD and the OECD and the EC narratives) -focus of this post; ➲ "aggressive tax planning" is a populistic policy term of no or little legal importance altogether (Cf. para. 80 of the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment in X BV case) - focus of the next post post. The attached print screen comes from my latest lectures at BI Norwegian Business School & Universitetet i Oslo. It illustrates that Cairn Energy UK wanted to enter into Bombay Stock Exchange (now: BSE) through a locally established subsidiary (CIL). To ensure a very high entry value of CIL's shares, assets of 27 subsidiaries operating in oil & gas sector in India were consolidated and eventually transferred to CIL (the Indian subsidiary aiming to on on BSE) in a series of incremental stages (CIHL Acquisition). It resulted from offshore indirect transfers (OITs) of shares. Capital gains stemming from such OITs were clearly outside the Indian jurisdiction to tax at the time of CIHL Acquisition. Supreme Court of India confirmed it in 2012 - Vodafone International Holdings BV v Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 613. The Court stated that section 9(1)(i) of Income Tax Act (ITA) does not impose a charge to tax on the sale of shares in foreign incorporated companies since these shares are not "assets situate in India" even though the assets owned by such companies may be so situated. Side note: Peter Hongler during his presentation for IFA Norway on 16 Oct 2024 called taxation of gains from OITs as an example of taxation beyond jurisdiction to tax, which is compatible with international custom, while the UTPR is not. My take: if not an international investment agreement (IIA), or a DTT as the case may be, custom alone is of no or little legal value to prevent such taxation.  📣India decided to overturn its own highest court's judgment in 2012 by adding to the ITA " Explanation 5", calling it only a "clarificatory" change: "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that an asset or a capital asset being any share or interest in a company or entity registered or incorporated outside India shall be deemed to be and shall always be deemed to have been situated in India, if the share or interest derives, directly or indirectly, its value substantially from the assets located in India." 💡The Tribunal did not buy the "clarificatory" argument at all. It was clearly a substantive and "grossly unfair" change in ITA (para. 1816). P.s.: ➢ Do you agree with the OECD argument that the PPT only mirrors "a guiding principle", e.g. that addition of the PPT to DTTs is only clarificatory in nature? ➢ Do you know other examples of "clarificatory" tax changes in domestic or international tax law?

2026 CIT Filing: New Tax Act or Old Rules? The Retroactivity Battle Unfolds The Nigeria Tax Act (NTA) 2025, which repealed and replaced the Companies Income Tax Act (CITA) among other laws, took effect on January 1, 2026. This major tax reform aims to consolidate and modernize Nigeria's tax framework, but its application to Companies Income Tax (CIT) filings has sparked debate over retrospective versus prospective implementation. In Nigeria's tax system, the year of assessment (YOA) for most companies (non-upstream petroleum) follows a preceding-year basis: the 2026 YOA covers profits earned in the 2025 financial year, when the old CITA regime was still in force. Recent guidance from the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS), formerly FIRS, indicates that CIT returns for the 2026 YOA should be prepared, filed, and assessed under the provisions of the NTA and the related Nigeria Tax Administration Act (NTAA), regardless of the filing date. This approach effectively applies the new rules to income earned before the NTA's commencement, raising concerns about retroactive taxation. Critics, including business groups like the Nigeria Employers' Consultative Association (NECA) and legal analyses, argue this conflicts with the principle of non-retroactivity in taxation. Nigerian courts (e.g., in cases involving prior Finance Acts) have ruled against retrospective application unless explicitly stated in the law. Since the NTA does not clearly mandate retroactive effect for CIT on pre-2026 income, it is therefore contend that the repealed CITA provisions should govern the 2026 YOA (i.e., 2025 profits). I think it is essential that major stakeholders proactively engage with the relevant regulatory authorities in reconciling tgis before companies will commence filing. What are your thoughts? Do you think the NRS’ guideline is in order or should be reviewed? Olamide Olaniran ACA Tomi Akinwale Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for educational purposes and should not be quoted out of context. The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of BBM (the author) and do not represent the views or positions of the author’s employer or any other affiliated institutions. The content provided is based on the author's personal analysis and research and should not be construed as professional advice. Readers are encouraged to seek professional guidance for specific concerns. The author disclaims any liability for any actions taken based on the information presented in this article.

Intermediary Services: Can refund be claimed for past periods after omission of Section 13(8)(b)? The omission of section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act is a "substantive change in law", not a mere procedural correction. And that distinction matters. What is a “substantive change in law”? In tax jurisprudence, a change is considered substantive when it alters rights, liabilities or tax incidence and not merely clarifies an existing ambiguity. The Supreme Court has consistently held that such amendments are prospective in nature unless specifically made retrospective. If one argues that this omission should operate retrospectively then the impact is not one sided. - It may open refund claims for intermediary services (treating them as exports) - But at the same time, it can also create tax exposure under reverse charge in cases involving import of intermediary services, since place of supply dynamics would shift. .. A substantive amendment ordinarily operates prospectively, unless the legislature clearly says otherwise. In other words, the omission improves the law for the future but by itself it does not automatically reopen all completed past tax periods. .. So, can refund be claimed for earlier periods? Technically, yes, but not because the amendment is retrospective. The better argument is this: - If a taxpayer had paid IGST on intermediary services for past periods, - and the underlying transaction was in substance an export of service, - then refund can be sought on the ground that the "tax was never legally payable", subject to the refund machinery and limitation framework. That means the refund case for past periods has to be built on substantive legal character, not merely on the later omission of section 13(8)(b). .. 1. For supplies on or after the effective date The amended law applies, so intermediary services may move out of the old deeming fiction and into the normal place of supply rule. 2. For old periods where tax was already paid Refund can still be pursued, but the claim must be framed carefully: - export character of the service - no passing on of tax - proper evidence of foreign recipient - limitation strategy under section 54 .. Views welcome. #TaxTalksWithAnish

You can do everything right in a property deal — and still get taxed twice. Welcome to India’s Real Estate 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞-𝐭𝐚𝐱 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐩. You buy a flat. You pay the negotiated price. The transaction is genuine. And yet… Both the Buyer and the Seller receive Income-tax notices. Here’s how it happens. You purchase a property for 𝟏 𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐞. The Stamp Duty Value (Circle Rate) is 𝟏.𝟎𝟖 𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐞. Market price vs government value — a common gap. Earlier, the law punished both sides. 🚩 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐫 (𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟓𝟎𝐂 / 𝟒𝟑𝐂𝐀): “You under-reported sale consideration. We’ll tax you on ₹1.08 Cr.” 🚩 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐮𝐲𝐞𝐫 (𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟓𝟔(𝟐)(𝐱)): “You received a benefit of ₹8 Lakhs. That’s taxable income.” One transaction. Two deemed incomes. Zero real gain. This is what made real-estate litigation explode. Then came the 𝐒𝐚𝐟𝐞 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞. The Legislature finally acknowledged a simple truth: Circle Rates are rigid. Markets are not. So a 𝟏𝟎% 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐝 was introduced. If the difference between actual consideration and stamp duty value is within 10%: ✅ No addition for the Seller. ✅ No addition for the Buyer. ✅ Deal accepted as genuine. Simple. Logical. Fair. But the department argued one thing. “This relief is prospective. It applies only to future transactions.” That argument has now collapsed. In 2025, ITAT Mumbai and Pune Benches held the 10% rule to be 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞. ⚖️ 𝐇𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐌𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢 𝐯. 𝐈𝐓𝐎 ⚖️ 𝐒𝐚𝐢 𝐄𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐯. 𝐏𝐂𝐈𝐓 The principle is clear: When valuation variance is reasonable, legal fiction must yield to market reality. If the gap is within 10%, Sections 50C and 56(2)(x) cannot be weaponised. 💡 𝐀 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲: Always fix consideration through Account Payee Cheque or banking channels on the 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭. If you do this, even a higher circle rate on the date of registration becomes irrelevant. Because taxation is meant to capture 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞. Not hypothetical gains. Not deemed imaginations. Save this. It protects both buyers and sellers. #RealEstateTax #IncomeTaxIndia #Section50C #TaxLitigation #CACommunity #HomeBuyers #ModiFramework

𝗟𝗲𝘅 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘂𝘀: 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗘𝗨 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗚𝗦𝗧 — 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 A recent EU judgment reaffirms a foundational principle: 𝑳𝒆𝒙 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒓 𝒎𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒖𝒔 — 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒂 𝒍𝒂𝒘 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒓 𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒗𝒆 𝒂 𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒚, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒏𝒆𝒘𝒆𝒓, 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒍𝒂𝒘 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒍𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒄𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒔. Though rooted in criminal law, the Court extended this principle to administrative penalties with a punitive character. Importantly, it applies even where an earlier decision is deemed “final” under national law, so long as the appeal is part of the normal legal process. 𝐀 𝐆𝐒𝐓 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐥: 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟕𝟒 𝐯𝐬 𝟕𝟒𝐀 • Section 17(5)(i) disallows input tax credit (ITC) where tax is paid under Section 74 — typically in cases of fraud or suppression. • Budget 2024 repealed Section 74 and introduced Section 74A, which now governs both general and fraud-related demands. • Notably, Section 17(5) still refers only to Section 74, not 74A. • Section 74A does not carry forward the ITC disallowance clause. This legislative shift reflects a more lenient regime. Hence, a question; 𝑺𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒍𝒆𝒙 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒓 𝒎𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒖𝒔 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒍𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒑𝒂𝒔𝒕 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒅𝒔 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝑰𝑻𝑪 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒂𝒙 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒑𝒂𝒊𝒅 𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝑺𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 74? The GST Council’s earlier discussions suggest that avoiding a “double levy” once tax is paid and again when ITC is denied was the rationale for removing the restriction. Indian courts too have consistently upheld the retrospective application of beneficial amendments. This makes it an important area for examination and possible application.

GAAR v. Negotiated Bargains The Supreme Court's observations in paragraph 49 of the Tiger Global Ruling are significant for the application of domestic tax avoidance principles to negotiated bargains entered into under DTAAs. Misapplication of Vodafone: One can argue that there is a misapplication of Vodafone's principles: the ruling uses Vodafone to determine business intent, but it inverts its outcome. In Vodafone, an offshore Cayman Islands structure was recognized as genuine FDI, thereby rejecting the tax department's look-through approach, particularly in the absence of statutory backing. Using the same basis to pierce the veil of Mauritius entities (despite pre-2017 acquisitions) does make it a retrospective overreach. Grandfathering under DTAA was intended to protect past investments from the 2017 source-based taxation move. Despite that, the SC ruled that GAAR applies to post-2017 transfers (not acquisitions), thereby diluting this protection. From an international perspective, there could be a potential conflict in the BEPS Minimum Standards, which favors multilateral solutions over domestic overrides. There should be evidence of abuse beyond mere non-taxation, which would otherwise make it look like a presumptive denial, to be avoided. (a view expressed by the EU Court of Justice in the Danish Beneficial Ownership Cases (2019)). Allocation of Taxing Rights: The focus on DTAA spirit (i.e., preventing double non-taxation) fails to account for the fact that the allocation of taxing rights is, in itself, an exercise of tax sovereignty. The key question to ask and examine here is: if Mauritius chooses not to tax capital gains, can India unilaterally impose taxation without amending the treaty? The pre-2017 DTAA clearly provided for residency-based taxation of capital gains, and now, by extending GAAR to override it, it can potentially invite mutual agreement procedure (MAP) disputes or investor-state claims under bilateral investment treaties, a road no one wants to take. (Views expressed are personal) #DTAA #GAAR #BEPS #TaxSovereignty 

🛑Supreme Court to Examine Whether ITC Can Be Denied When Seller’s GST Registration Is Cancelled Retrospectively Case: Roshan Sharma v. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax & Anr. SLP(C) No. 31296/2025 | Order dated 10-11-2025 The Supreme Court has stepped in to assess a critical question affecting thousands of GST-registered businesses: Can ITC be denied to a purchaser merely because the supplier’s registration was cancelled retrospectively, even though it was valid on the date of supply? This issue arises in Roshan Sharma v. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax & Anr. [SLP(C) No. 31296/2025], where the Court has issued notice and stayed the High Court’s order. 📌Background ➡️The petitioner, a registered dealer, purchased goods from a supplier whose GST registration was later cancelled with retrospective effect. ➡️The Department denied ITC and imposed tax, interest, and penalty, solely because the supplier’s registration was cancelled post-facto. ➡️The petitioner asserted that the registration was valid on the date of purchase and requested cross-examination of the supplier, transporter, and access to Fastag data to prove actual movement of goods—none of which was granted. ➡️The High Court refused relief, pointing to the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. ➡️The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging both the substantive denial of ITC and the procedural lapses. ⚖️Supreme Court’s Observations ➡️Issued notice returnable in December 2025. ➡️Stayed the High Court order and recorded that the issues raised merit consideration. ➡️The Court will now examine whether ITC can be denied when the supplier’s registration was valid on the date of the transaction, but cancelled retrospectively. ➡️The Court will also examine whether denial of cross-examination and access to key evidence (Fastag data, transporter statements) vitiates the adjudication process. 🧾High Court Proceedings So Far Although the High Court declined relief on grounds of alternate remedy, earlier in M.A.T. 854/2024, it had: ▪️Quashed the initial Order-in-Original for violation of natural justice ▪️Directed the department to supply witness statements, evidence, and allow rebuttal After remand, the department passed the same order again. When challenged, the High Court in M.A.T. 1212/2025 again declined to interfere, directing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal. Thus, the merits of ITC denial due to retrospective cancellation have never been adjudicated, making SC intervention significant. 📌Key Questions Before the Supreme Court 🔹Can ITC be denied when supplier registration was valid on transaction date? 🔹Is retrospective cancellation sufficient to deny ITC to a bona fide purchaser? 🔹Does failure to provide cross-examination and key evidence invalidate proceedings? 🔹What is the scope of “due diligence” expected from a buyer? These issues have major implications for trade certainty and GST fairness nationwide.