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 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 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
