Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
