Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
HC determined that utilizing Input Tax Credit (ITC) available in IGST under CGST and SGST heads does not constitute improper availment warranting penalties. The electronic credit ledger functions as a wallet with separate compartments for IGST, CGST, and SGST. Despite petitioner's pending appeal, HC exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the assessment order, finding that the method of ITC utilization was legitimate. The Court directed proper officer to reconsider the assessment, emphasizing that cross-utilization between different tax heads within the electronic credit ledger is permissible and does not attract penalties. Petition allowed with assessment order set aside for reconsideration.
HC determined that utilizing Input Tax Credit (ITC) available in IGST under CGST and SGST heads does not constitute improper availment warranting penalties. The electronic credit ledger functions as a wallet with separate compartments for IGST, CGST, and SGST. Despite petitioner's pending appeal, HC exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the assessment order, finding that the method of ITC utilization was legitimate. The Court directed proper officer to reconsider the assessment, emphasizing that cross-utilization between different tax heads within the electronic credit ledger is permissible and does not attract penalties. Petition allowed with assessment order set aside for reconsideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.