Timing mismatch in income recognition requires verification whether receipts were already taxed in an earlier year; matter remitted for fresh examinat...
FOB transaction value and export incentives: customs valuation cannot override contractual export benefits or support confiscation without valid proof...
The High Court ruled that the petitioner's entitlement to avail Input Tax Credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be denied, as long as the credit was validly earned. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., which held that validly earned credit is indefeasible and cannot be reversed, except in cases of illegal or irregular credit. Regarding the procedural irregularity u/s 140 of the CGST Act, 2017, the court condoned it, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP v. Auraiya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad, which held that procedures are aids to justice, not obstacles. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
The High Court ruled that the petitioner's entitlement to avail Input Tax Credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be denied, as long as the credit was validly earned. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., which held that validly earned credit is indefeasible and cannot be reversed, except in cases of illegal or irregular credit. Regarding the procedural irregularity u/s 140 of the CGST Act, 2017, the court condoned it, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP v. Auraiya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad, which held that procedures are aids to justice, not obstacles. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
