Income Declaration Scheme declarations can evidence share-capital sources, while round-tripped funds and cash-linked credits require further verificat...
Permanent establishment tests: independent subsidiary premises and principal-to-principal dealings did not create Indian taxability for offshore suppl...
Valuation Officer estimates govern property-value additions once statutory valuation is invoked, requiring fresh consideration of objections and compa...
Waiver of written show-cause notice may prevent a later procedural challenge after participation in customs adjudication, preserving statutory appella...
Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Assignment or transfer of leasehold rights in a GIDC industrial plot is characterised as a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property, not a taxable GST supply. GST charged on that transfer therefore lacks legal basis, and input tax credit reversal and interest premised on the assumed levy cannot stand. The blocked-credit restriction for goods or services used in construction of immovable property does not apply where no construction activity occurred. As the underlying transaction is not taxable and the blocked-credit premise fails, allegations of wrongful credit, fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression for section 74 proceedings, including consequential penalty, cannot be sustained. The adjudication and appellate demands were quashed, with refund of tax and interest directed.
Assignment or transfer of leasehold rights in a GIDC industrial plot is characterised as a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property, not a taxable GST supply. GST charged on that transfer therefore lacks legal basis, and input tax credit reversal and interest premised on the assumed levy cannot stand. The blocked-credit restriction for goods or services used in construction of immovable property does not apply where no construction activity occurred. As the underlying transaction is not taxable and the blocked-credit premise fails, allegations of wrongful credit, fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression for section 74 proceedings, including consequential penalty, cannot be sustained. The adjudication and appellate demands were quashed, with refund of tax and interest directed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.