Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
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.