Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
An application for waiver of interest and penalty under section 128A could not be rejected solely because input tax credit had been availed from non-existing taxpayers, cancelled dealers, or return defaulters. The High Court held that, since an assessment order had been issued and no appellate order existed, the application fell within clause (b) of section 128A(1) and related to a covered period. If the alleged ITC irregularity was the real basis, proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 74; the record showed they were initiated under section 73. The rejection was therefore unsustainable, the order was set aside, and the waiver application was remanded for fresh consideration.
An application for waiver of interest and penalty under section 128A could not be rejected solely because input tax credit had been availed from non-existing taxpayers, cancelled dealers, or return defaulters. The High Court held that, since an assessment order had been issued and no appellate order existed, the application fell within clause (b) of section 128A(1) and related to a covered period. If the alleged ITC irregularity was the real basis, proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 74; the record showed they were initiated under section 73. The rejection was therefore unsustainable, the order was set aside, and the waiver application was remanded for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
