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 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 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
