Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order, declaring that the appellant shall not be seen as having availed excess credit for initiating proceedings u/s 73 of the GST Act. The case revealed no wrong availment of credit, and the appellant's mistake of omitting to mention IGST figures separately in Form GSTR 3A was inadvertent and technical, insignificant as there was no outward supply attracting IGST. Proceedings u/s 73 are attracted only when tax has not been paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax wrongly availed or utilised, which did not occur in this case.
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order, declaring that the appellant shall not be seen as having availed excess credit for initiating proceedings u/s 73 of the GST Act. The case revealed no wrong availment of credit, and the appellant's mistake of omitting to mention IGST figures separately in Form GSTR 3A was inadvertent and technical, insignificant as there was no outward supply attracting IGST. Proceedings u/s 73 are attracted only when tax has not been paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax wrongly availed or utilised, which did not occur in this case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.