Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The High Court addressed a challenge to an assessment order regarding the reversal of Input Tax Credit for credit notes issued by the supplier. The court found that the requirements under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the GST statutes were not satisfied, leading to the supplier being liable to pay tax on the full value of supply. The court highlighted the discretionary nature of jurisdiction under Article 226, noting that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar its exercise. Despite the petitioner approaching the appellate authority for other issues, the court exercised jurisdiction due to the need for evidence reappraisal. The impugned order was set aside only concerning the reversal of Input Tax Credit, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court addressed a challenge to an assessment order regarding the reversal of Input Tax Credit for credit notes issued by the supplier. The court found that the requirements under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the GST statutes were not satisfied, leading to the supplier being liable to pay tax on the full value of supply. The court highlighted the discretionary nature of jurisdiction under Article 226, noting that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar its exercise. Despite the petitioner approaching the appellate authority for other issues, the court exercised jurisdiction due to the need for evidence reappraisal. The impugned order was set aside only concerning the reversal of Input Tax Credit, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
