Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Petitioner challenged ineligibility for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on certain commodities as per Section 17(5) of GST statutes and ITC on supplies from cancelled dealers. Petitioner submitted invoices, e-way bills, and supplier's returns proving payment of tax. Impugned order lacked findings on first issue, confirmed tax proposal on second issue citing lack of lorry receipts, weighment slips, and payment proof, despite show cause notice not seeking these. High Court set aside impugned order, remanded matter for reconsideration, allowed petitioner to submit additional reply with relevant documents on movement of goods within 15 days.
Petitioner challenged ineligibility for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on certain commodities as per Section 17(5) of GST statutes and ITC on supplies from cancelled dealers. Petitioner submitted invoices, e-way bills, and supplier's returns proving payment of tax. Impugned order lacked findings on first issue, confirmed tax proposal on second issue citing lack of lorry receipts, weighment slips, and payment proof, despite show cause notice not seeking these. High Court set aside impugned order, remanded matter for reconsideration, allowed petitioner to submit additional reply with relevant documents on movement of goods within 15 days.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.