Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1521 to 1540 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reversal of ITC - The High Court found that certain findings recorded by the adjudicating authority were outside the scope of the allegations in the show-cause notice. The authority had admitted that the appellant made payment of tax to the supplier against the transaction, but failed to remit the tax to the State exchequer. However, the court deemed it arbitrary to penalize the appellant without first conducting an enquiry with the supplier. - The Court reiterated the conditions prescribed in Section 16 (2) of the Act for a dealer to be eligible to avail credit of any input tax. - The Court highlighted the importance of action against the selling dealer before directing the appellant to reverse the input tax credit. It emphasized that unless exceptional circumstances exist, proceedings should be initiated against the supplier first.
Reversal of ITC - The High Court found that certain findings recorded by the adjudicating authority were outside the scope of the allegations in the show-cause notice. The authority had admitted that the appellant made payment of tax to the supplier against the transaction, but failed to remit the tax to the State exchequer. However, the court deemed it arbitrary to penalize the appellant without first conducting an enquiry with the supplier. - The Court reiterated the conditions prescribed in Section 16 (2) of the Act for a dealer to be eligible to avail credit of any input tax. - The Court highlighted the importance of action against the selling dealer before directing the appellant to reverse the input tax credit. It emphasized that unless exceptional circumstances exist, proceedings should be initiated against the supplier first.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
