Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 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 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 
