Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
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 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
