Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Petitioner sought quashing of intimation blocking input tax credit, alleging forged invoices without actual supply of goods or services. Competent officer had reason to believe the input tax credit claim was fraudulent u/r 86A of GST Rules, 2017. Court held that impugned notices/intimation were within jurisdiction and in accordance with GST Act and Rules. No grounds found to interfere with intimation and notices. Writ petition dismissed.
Petitioner sought quashing of intimation blocking input tax credit, alleging forged invoices without actual supply of goods or services. Competent officer had reason to believe the input tax credit claim was fraudulent u/r 86A of GST Rules, 2017. Court held that impugned notices/intimation were within jurisdiction and in accordance with GST Act and Rules. No grounds found to interfere with intimation and notices. Writ petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.