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 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
