LatestCorporate Compliance 10 October 2026
Section 16(2)(c) Upheld: Supplier Default Not Proof of Fraud
The court upheld Section 16(2)(c), clarifying that a supplier's default alone cannot be used to prove purchaser fraud. This ruling impacts how PF coverage disputes are evaluated, especially for senior citizen savings schemes, and sets a higher evidentiary bar for alleging fraudulent intent.
[Section 16(2)(c) judgment](https://www.caclubindia.com/articles/section-162c-survives-but-supplier-default-alone-cannot-establish-purchaser-fraud-56382.asp) reaffirmed that a supplier’s default does not automatically constitute purchaser fraud.
- Supplier default alone is insufficient evidence of fraud.
- Courts now require concrete proof of intentional deception.
- Decision affects PF coverage assessments and senior citizen saving scheme interests.
Need help understanding this update?
Connect with our domain experts instantly via WhatsApp for customized legal guidance.