Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

TRAN 1 Capital goods received after the appointed date but invoice in june -2017

Yellapu SivaPrasad

Sir,

my client has received the capital goods on 7.07.2017 but the invoiced raised ON 24.06.2017 the in the month of June-2017. he claimed the credit 100 % in TRAN-1 .Now , the departmental officer has gave notice for reversal of the credit as you did not claimed the 50% credit on ER1 Returns i.e you did not claimed in earlier tax regime.Hence, you are not eligible claim 100% and reverse the same along with interest Please provide any clarifications issued by the CBIC or case laws for my case to substantiate .Please guide me

Client Challenges GST Notice: Claims 100% Credit on Capital Goods, Citing Compliance and Legal Precedents A client received capital goods on July 7, 2017, with an invoice dated June 24, 2017, and claimed 100% credit in TRAN-1 under GST. The department issued a notice for reversal, arguing only 50% credit was claimable under the previous tax regime. Respondents argue the department's stance is incorrect, as the client complied with Central Excise law and the GST regime allows 100% credit at once. They cite case law supporting the client's position and emphasize that procedural issues should not hinder genuine credit claims. The discussion includes references to transitional provisions and relevant legal precedents. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues