Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Validity of input tax credit (ITC) u/s 16 of the UP GST Act hinges on compliance with specified conditions to avoid double taxation. The burden lies on the dealer to prove fulfillment of conditions for claiming ITC. Merely producing tax invoices, e-way bills, and banking channel payments is insufficient. Proof of actual physical movement of goods, genuineness of transportation, payment of freight charges, acknowledgment of delivery, toll receipts, and filing of GSTR 2A is necessary. The Supreme Court has held that the primary burden is on the dealer to furnish details like selling dealer, vehicle number, freight payment, delivery acknowledgment, tax invoices, and payment particulars to establish actual goods movement. Submitting only invoices, e-way bills, or payment details is inadequate. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders denying ITC for non-compliance with statutory conditions.
Validity of input tax credit (ITC) u/s 16 of the UP GST Act hinges on compliance with specified conditions to avoid double taxation. The burden lies on the dealer to prove fulfillment of conditions for claiming ITC. Merely producing tax invoices, e-way bills, and banking channel payments is insufficient. Proof of actual physical movement of goods, genuineness of transportation, payment of freight charges, acknowledgment of delivery, toll receipts, and filing of GSTR 2A is necessary. The Supreme Court has held that the primary burden is on the dealer to furnish details like selling dealer, vehicle number, freight payment, delivery acknowledgment, tax invoices, and payment particulars to establish actual goods movement. Submitting only invoices, e-way bills, or payment details is inadequate. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders denying ITC for non-compliance with statutory conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
