Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Petitioner challenged order u/s 74 of TNGST Act, 2017 for assessment year 2017-18 due to mismatch between GSTR 3B and auto-populated GSTR 2A regarding input tax credit. Court held that respondent failed to consider changes in CGST Rules, 2017, particularly Rule 36(4). Difference between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B attributable to mismatch for supplies by RAMCO, constituting 10.53% of total credit, less than 20% as per amended Rule 36(4) till 09.10.2019. Impugned order set aside, case remitted to respondent to pass fresh orders considering amended provisions under Notification No. 49/2019-Central Tax. Recovery proceedings kept in abeyance pending remand orders. Petition allowed by way of remand.
Petitioner challenged order u/s 74 of TNGST Act, 2017 for assessment year 2017-18 due to mismatch between GSTR 3B and auto-populated GSTR 2A regarding input tax credit. Court held that respondent failed to consider changes in CGST Rules, 2017, particularly Rule 36(4). Difference between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B attributable to mismatch for supplies by RAMCO, constituting 10.53% of total credit, less than 20% as per amended Rule 36(4) till 09.10.2019. Impugned order set aside, case remitted to respondent to pass fresh orders considering amended provisions under Notification No. 49/2019-Central Tax. Recovery proceedings kept in abeyance pending remand orders. Petition allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
