Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
