Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The summary focuses on the refund claim rejection based on the ground that the amount paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) is not admissible u/r 9(1)(bb) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and was hence ineligible for transition as input tax credit u/s 142(8)(a) of CGST Act. It highlights that Rule 9(1)(e), not Rule 9(1)(bb), is applicable for RCM payments, and credit cannot be denied, citing the POLYGENTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. case. Regarding transition of credit, it states that u/ss 142 and 140 of the CGST Act, the appellant was eligible for TRAN-1 credit, and the rejection citing non-declaration in Service Tax returns was hyper-technical. Section 142(8)(b) mandates refunding eligible credit in cash. The Adfert Technologies case upheld transitional credit as a vested right. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The summary focuses on the refund claim rejection based on the ground that the amount paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) is not admissible u/r 9(1)(bb) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and was hence ineligible for transition as input tax credit u/s 142(8)(a) of CGST Act. It highlights that Rule 9(1)(e), not Rule 9(1)(bb), is applicable for RCM payments, and credit cannot be denied, citing the POLYGENTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. case. Regarding transition of credit, it states that u/ss 142 and 140 of the CGST Act, the appellant was eligible for TRAN-1 credit, and the rejection citing non-declaration in Service Tax returns was hyper-technical. Section 142(8)(b) mandates refunding eligible credit in cash. The Adfert Technologies case upheld transitional credit as a vested right. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
