Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The appellants were held eligible for refund of Cenvat credit u/s 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal ruled that Section 142(8)(a) was wrongly invoked to reject the refund claim, as it pertains only to input tax credit and not Cenvat credit for the pre-GST period. Payment u/s 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 did not impact admissibility of the Cenvat credit. Rule 9(1)(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was inapplicable in this reverse charge scenario without any show cause notice or adjudication order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The appellants were held eligible for refund of Cenvat credit u/s 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal ruled that Section 142(8)(a) was wrongly invoked to reject the refund claim, as it pertains only to input tax credit and not Cenvat credit for the pre-GST period. Payment u/s 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 did not impact admissibility of the Cenvat credit. Rule 9(1)(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was inapplicable in this reverse charge scenario without any show cause notice or adjudication order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
