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 ...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The respondent denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the petitioner based on alleged purchase of goods under HSN 85171110, non-payment to creditors exceeding 180 days, and payments made to statutory auditors. The court held that the respondent failed to consider the petitioner's reply and confirmed the audit observations without providing a reasonable opportunity. Regarding payments to auditors, the show cause notice did not require producing invoices, which the petitioner has now submitted, necessitating reconsideration. On the alleged purchase of goods, the petitioner asserted dealing with online recharge coupons, not mobile phones, and had provided extensive documents during the audit, warranting reconsideration. Concerning non-payment to creditors, the petitioner clarified having only one creditor with a three-day credit period, and no evidence of non-payment beyond 180 days was presented. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter remanded for reconsideration by the respondent after providing a reasonable opportunity and personal hearing to the petitioner within three months.
The respondent denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the petitioner based on alleged purchase of goods under HSN 85171110, non-payment to creditors exceeding 180 days, and payments made to statutory auditors. The court held that the respondent failed to consider the petitioner's reply and confirmed the audit observations without providing a reasonable opportunity. Regarding payments to auditors, the show cause notice did not require producing invoices, which the petitioner has now submitted, necessitating reconsideration. On the alleged purchase of goods, the petitioner asserted dealing with online recharge coupons, not mobile phones, and had provided extensive documents during the audit, warranting reconsideration. Concerning non-payment to creditors, the petitioner clarified having only one creditor with a three-day credit period, and no evidence of non-payment beyond 180 days was presented. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter remanded for reconsideration by the respondent after providing a reasonable opportunity and personal hearing to the petitioner within three months.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
