Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revision of assessment relating to the alleged difference in input tax credit was sustainable and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.
Analysis: The dispute concerned the difference between the input tax credit claimed by the dealer and the tax reflected in the sellers' Annexure II statements. The notice did not call upon the petitioner to establish movement of goods, yet the impugned order proceeded on that ground, introducing a basis not put to the petitioner in the show cause notice. The order also failed to consider the petitioner's specific explanation that some sellers had filed returns and Annexure II manually, while others had filed them electronically, and that the discrepancy had been reduced on verification. The respondent did not deal with the supporting materials or the cited decisions relied on by the petitioner, and the reasoning recorded was not sufficient to sustain the adverse finding.
Conclusion: The finding on the difference in input tax credit was set aside and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration after notice, personal hearing, disclosure of the invoice numbers concerned, and a speaking order in accordance with law.