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" ?
The petitioners sought transfer of unutilized input tax credit available in their ledgers as on 02.06.2014 to the AP GST regime. The court held that Section 56 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 deals with refund of excess tax collected, but is inapplicable to unutilized input tax credit, which is not excess tax paid. Consequently, the impugned demand orders in Form GST DRC-07 issued by the respondent were set aside, and the petition was allowed. The court clarified that the petitioners' only option was not to seek a refund, as Section 56 did not cover unutilized input tax credit.
The petitioners sought transfer of unutilized input tax credit available in their ledgers as on 02.06.2014 to the AP GST regime. The court held that Section 56 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 deals with refund of excess tax collected, but is inapplicable to unutilized input tax credit, which is not excess tax paid. Consequently, the impugned demand orders in Form GST DRC-07 issued by the respondent were set aside, and the petition was allowed. The court clarified that the petitioners' only option was not to seek a refund, as Section 56 did not cover unutilized input tax credit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
