Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
HC examined proceedings under Section 73 of UP GST Act regarding disputed input tax credit claims. The authority initially rejected certificates filed per Government Order dated 27.12.2022, claiming absence of GSTN details. Upon review, HC found GSTN numbers were clearly mentioned in submitted certificates. Given this material discrepancy in assessment, HC remanded the matter to original authority for fresh consideration. Authority directed to review all materials, conduct stakeholder hearings, and issue reasoned order within three months of certified order copy production. Petition allowed through remand, emphasizing need for comprehensive review of documentation and proper procedural compliance in input tax credit determination.
HC examined proceedings under Section 73 of UP GST Act regarding disputed input tax credit claims. The authority initially rejected certificates filed per Government Order dated 27.12.2022, claiming absence of GSTN details. Upon review, HC found GSTN numbers were clearly mentioned in submitted certificates. Given this material discrepancy in assessment, HC remanded the matter to original authority for fresh consideration. Authority directed to review all materials, conduct stakeholder hearings, and issue reasoned order within three months of certified order copy production. Petition allowed through remand, emphasizing need for comprehensive review of documentation and proper procedural compliance in input tax credit determination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.