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...
The petitioner challenged the refund sanctioning orders u/s 54 of the CGST Act on the ground that the unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC), including transitional credit from CENVAT, was ignored. The High Court held that the provisions of Section 54 would apply, and the authorities could not deprive the petitioner of the CENVAT credit available on 01.07.2017 merely because it was reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger in August 2017 after processing Form GST TRAN-1. Considering the decision in M/s. Torrent Pharmaceuticals case, the High Court quashed the impugned orders and the show-cause notice, allowing the refund of unutilized ITC after considering the CENVAT credit.
The petitioner challenged the refund sanctioning orders u/s 54 of the CGST Act on the ground that the unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC), including transitional credit from CENVAT, was ignored. The High Court held that the provisions of Section 54 would apply, and the authorities could not deprive the petitioner of the CENVAT credit available on 01.07.2017 merely because it was reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger in August 2017 after processing Form GST TRAN-1. Considering the decision in M/s. Torrent Pharmaceuticals case, the High Court quashed the impugned orders and the show-cause notice, allowing the refund of unutilized ITC after considering the CENVAT credit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.