Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The petitioner challenged the levy of interest and penalty for wrongly availing and utilizing Input Tax Credit (ITC). The court held that unless ITC is wrongfully availed and utilized, interest cannot be levied u/s 50(3) of the GST Act, as amended retrospectively by the Finance Act 2022. The petitioner had debited its credit ledger for the wrongly availed ITC but did not utilize it. The court observed that payment of interest and penalty can only be made by debiting the electronic cash ledger, not the credit ledger, as per Sections 49(4), 50(1) proviso, and Rules 86 and 87. Since the petitioner had not utilized the wrongly availed ITC, the demand for interest and penalty was quashed, and the orders passed by the authorities were set aside.
The petitioner challenged the levy of interest and penalty for wrongly availing and utilizing Input Tax Credit (ITC). The court held that unless ITC is wrongfully availed and utilized, interest cannot be levied u/s 50(3) of the GST Act, as amended retrospectively by the Finance Act 2022. The petitioner had debited its credit ledger for the wrongly availed ITC but did not utilize it. The court observed that payment of interest and penalty can only be made by debiting the electronic cash ledger, not the credit ledger, as per Sections 49(4), 50(1) proviso, and Rules 86 and 87. Since the petitioner had not utilized the wrongly availed ITC, the demand for interest and penalty was quashed, and the orders passed by the authorities were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
