Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that transitional credit under CGST Act is not available for capital goods in transit as of the appointed date. While Section 140 of CGST Act allows carrying forward unutilized CENVAT credit for both inputs and capital goods, sub-section (5) specifically distinguishes between them. The CENVAT Credit Rules 2017, which superseded the 2004 Rules, provides no facility for claiming credit of excise duty on capital goods in transit. Following RSPL Limited precedent, the court affirmed that treating inputs and capital goods differently is constitutionally valid under Article 14, as they form distinct classes. The distinction in transitional provisions between inputs and capital goods was found lawful and justified. Application dismissed.
HC held that transitional credit under CGST Act is not available for capital goods in transit as of the appointed date. While Section 140 of CGST Act allows carrying forward unutilized CENVAT credit for both inputs and capital goods, sub-section (5) specifically distinguishes between them. The CENVAT Credit Rules 2017, which superseded the 2004 Rules, provides no facility for claiming credit of excise duty on capital goods in transit. Following RSPL Limited precedent, the court affirmed that treating inputs and capital goods differently is constitutionally valid under Article 14, as they form distinct classes. The distinction in transitional provisions between inputs and capital goods was found lawful and justified. Application dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.