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...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
