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 upheld denial of input tax credit (ITC) under GST law. Petitioners failed to demonstrate actual receipt of goods and legitimacy of transactions with suppliers. Court emphasized that while Section 7's definition of supply is broad, valid ITC claims must satisfy Section 16(2)(b) requirements. Despite petitioners' argument regarding denied cross-examination of suppliers, HC ruled this wasn't a violation of natural justice. Key findings centered on petitioners' failure to maintain proper documentation, including e-way bills for goods valued over Rs.50,000, and inability to prove physical receipt of goods. Per Rule 36 and Section 16(2), burden of proving valid receipt lies with recipient. Without meeting these statutory requirements, provisional credit must be reversed. Petition dismissed.
HC upheld denial of input tax credit (ITC) under GST law. Petitioners failed to demonstrate actual receipt of goods and legitimacy of transactions with suppliers. Court emphasized that while Section 7's definition of supply is broad, valid ITC claims must satisfy Section 16(2)(b) requirements. Despite petitioners' argument regarding denied cross-examination of suppliers, HC ruled this wasn't a violation of natural justice. Key findings centered on petitioners' failure to maintain proper documentation, including e-way bills for goods valued over Rs.50,000, and inability to prove physical receipt of goods. Per Rule 36 and Section 16(2), burden of proving valid receipt lies with recipient. Without meeting these statutory requirements, provisional credit must be reversed. Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
