Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 The CENVAT Credit Rules 2017, which superseded the 2004 Rules, provides no facility for claiming credit of excise duty on capital goods in transit.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 The CENVAT Credit Rules 2017, which superseded the 2004 Rules, provides no facility for claiming credit of excise duty on capital goods in transit.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.