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 HC held that invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 74 of the CGST Act is a jurisdictional aspect in the present case. The petitioner has been paying GST at 5% under Entry No. 181-A for the product in question since 2017, while paying higher GST at 12% for different products. As Entry No. 181-A is not different from the similarly worded sub-heading 3003.31 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which has been repeatedly interpreted contrary to the allegations in the show cause notice, the aspect of invoking the extended period requires consideration along with the binding nature of the GST Council's deliberations. The HC found the issues raised to be jurisdictional and issued notice for further consideration.
The HC held that invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 74 of the CGST Act is a jurisdictional aspect in the present case. The petitioner has been paying GST at 5% under Entry No. 181-A for the product in question since 2017, while paying higher GST at 12% for different products. As Entry No. 181-A is not different from the similarly worded sub-heading 3003.31 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which has been repeatedly interpreted contrary to the allegations in the show cause notice, the aspect of invoking the extended period requires consideration along with the binding nature of the GST Council's deliberations. The HC found the issues raised to be jurisdictional and issued notice for further consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
