Anti-profiteering obligations survive business demerger, complaint withdrawal, and customized supply arrangements where rate-reduction benefits are no...
Road restoration charges constitute taxable services when requested for commercial pipeline activity, requiring reverse-charge GST from the business r...
Interest on delayed release of requisitioned cash includes statutory pre-assessment interest and restitutionary compensation for unlawful post-assessm...
Incomplete inventory records justify rejecting accounts, while profit estimation requires relevant comparable material and interest falls under other ...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires functional alignment; delayed associated-enterprise receivables need separate LIBOR-based benchmarking, while ...
Blocking the input tax credit against the petitioners - The High Court emphasizes that Rule 86(A) allows restricting debit from the electronic credit ledger for an amount equivalent to fraudulently availed credit. Rule 86(A) doesn't authorize negative balance insertion in the ledger; it only permits blocking of the credit available. The Court rules that blocking ITC effectively deprives the petitioner of the right to discharge liabilities. The respondents should have initiated recovery proceedings under Section 73 or Section 74 if the petitioner had fraudulently availed ITC. The action of the respondents is deemed unsustainable as it violates Rule 86(A) and previous court decisions. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the respondents are directed to recall the order of blockage immediately.
Blocking the input tax credit against the petitioners - The High Court emphasizes that Rule 86(A) allows restricting debit from the electronic credit ledger for an amount equivalent to fraudulently availed credit. Rule 86(A) doesn't authorize negative balance insertion in the ledger; it only permits blocking of the credit available. The Court rules that blocking ITC effectively deprives the petitioner of the right to discharge liabilities. The respondents should have initiated recovery proceedings under Section 73 or Section 74 if the petitioner had fraudulently availed ITC. The action of the respondents is deemed unsustainable as it violates Rule 86(A) and previous court decisions. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the respondents are directed to recall the order of blockage immediately.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
