Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Effective service requirement: officers must explore alternative service modes beyond the GST portal and afford personal hearing; non-compliance voids...
Input tax credit cannot be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer who transacted with a registered supplier and complied with statutory requirements merely because the supplier failed to deposit the tax collected from the purchaser. The proper remedy is to proceed against the defaulting supplier, not to shift the burden onto the purchaser by way of vicarious liability. The demand and appellate orders were set aside because the controversy was covered by binding precedent, but the Department retained liberty to act in accordance with law if material shows the transactions were collusive or not bona fide.
Input tax credit cannot be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer who transacted with a registered supplier and complied with statutory requirements merely because the supplier failed to deposit the tax collected from the purchaser. The proper remedy is to proceed against the defaulting supplier, not to shift the burden onto the purchaser by way of vicarious liability. The demand and appellate orders were set aside because the controversy was covered by binding precedent, but the Department retained liberty to act in accordance with law if material shows the transactions were collusive or not bona fide.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.