Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Input tax credit mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, in relation to import and SEZ procurements, did not by itself establish excess availment where GSTR-2A for the relevant period did not capture such credits by design. The HC noted that the petitioner had disclosed the procurements in GSTR-3B and later in GSTR-9, and that import credit was supported by the Bill of Entry; the demand, interest and penalty on this ground were set aside. On the remaining issues, including corporate guarantee, cross-charges, promotion expenses, merchant export rate, export refund, reverse charge on import of services and medical-consultation credit, the adjudication was found unsustainable for failure to consider the governing provisions, circulars, notifications and submissions, so those findings were remanded for fresh decision.
Input tax credit mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, in relation to import and SEZ procurements, did not by itself establish excess availment where GSTR-2A for the relevant period did not capture such credits by design. The HC noted that the petitioner had disclosed the procurements in GSTR-3B and later in GSTR-9, and that import credit was supported by the Bill of Entry; the demand, interest and penalty on this ground were set aside. On the remaining issues, including corporate guarantee, cross-charges, promotion expenses, merchant export rate, export refund, reverse charge on import of services and medical-consultation credit, the adjudication was found unsustainable for failure to consider the governing provisions, circulars, notifications and submissions, so those findings were remanded for fresh decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.