Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
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.