Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95836 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.