Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
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...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
