Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court allowed the petition in part and directed the respondents to restore the input tax credit (ITC) of Rs. 9,83,53,032/- in the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger within four weeks. The Court held that the reversal of ITC by the respondents during the summons proceedings without an adjudication process was a violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Sections 16, 41, and 73/74 of the CGST Act. The ITC was initially claimed by the petitioner for exports and was debited twice, once during the summons proceedings and again when filing the refund application, leading to the Court's directive to restore the ITC amount.
The High Court allowed the petition in part and directed the respondents to restore the input tax credit (ITC) of Rs. 9,83,53,032/- in the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger within four weeks. The Court held that the reversal of ITC by the respondents during the summons proceedings without an adjudication process was a violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Sections 16, 41, and 73/74 of the CGST Act. The ITC was initially claimed by the petitioner for exports and was debited twice, once during the summons proceedings and again when filing the refund application, leading to the Court's directive to restore the ITC amount.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
