GST Council's 57th Meeting Scraps Arrest Powers Under GST

The correct answer is Rs 5 crore. Among the decriminalisation measures taken at the 57th meeting of the GST Council, the money threshold at which a prosecution may be launched was lifted to five crore rupees, so that criminal proceedings are reserved for large cases of fraud and evasion rather than ordinary disputes over tax. Option A is wrong because one crore rupees is the old threshold that this meeting replaced, not the new one. Option B is wrong because two crore rupees was never the figure at any stage, either before or after the meeting. Option D is wrong because ten crore rupees goes well beyond what the Council recommended. Along with this change the Council proposed omitting section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 to end the power of arrest, trimming clauses of section 132 and keeping as the core offence the fraudulent claiming of input tax credit with no supply or invoice behind it.

The correct answer is section 69. The Council recommended the complete withdrawal of arrest powers under the goods and services tax by deleting this section from the CGST Act, 2017, a step presented as part of a trust-based tax system that still keeps deterrence against fraud. Option B is wrong because section 74 deals with demands and penalties in cases of fraud or wilful misstatement, which the meeting amended rather than deleted, cutting the penalty to five per cent where tax and interest are paid in time. Option C is wrong because section 125 carries the general penalty, which was reduced from 25,000 rupees to 10,000 rupees instead of being removed. Option D is wrong because section 132 lists the offences that attract prosecution; some of its clauses were trimmed, but the section itself stays on the statute book.

The correct answer is Rs 10,000. The Council recommended cutting the ceiling on the general penalty under section 125 of the CGST Act from 25,000 rupees to 10,000 rupees. The same figure appears in a second decision of the meeting: a show cause notice is not to be issued at all where the tax at stake is below 10,000 rupees, counting central, state and integrated tax together with cess, and pending notices and appeals below that amount are to be settled as though the floor had always applied. Options A, C and D are wrong because none of 5,000, 15,000 or 20,000 rupees was recommended as the new ceiling; they are plausible only as round numbers between the old and the new limits. The Council also removed the minimum penalty in cases that do not involve fraud.

The correct answer is Joint Commissioner. The Council recommended changes to sections 68, 129 and 130 of the CGST Act so that a vehicle carrying goods may be stopped only when there is specific intelligence about it and an officer of at least this rank has cleared the action. A state through which the consignment is merely passing may not intercept it, and inspection or seizure is possible only where either the supplier or the recipient is based or registered in that state. Options A and B are wrong because an inspector or a superintendent cannot authorise such an interception under the recommendation, even though officers of those ranks carry out field checks. Option D is wrong because clearance at so senior a level was never proposed and would make enforcement unworkable. Where no e-way bill exists, goods may still be inspected or seized anywhere, and goods in transit are protected from confiscation.