Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
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 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
