Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The HC held that the petitioner was entitled to Input Tax Credit (ITC) despite the seller's GST registration being canceled retrospectively. Since the transaction occurred on 06.12.2018 when the seller was validly registered, and the cancellation took effect from 29.01.2020, no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner. The Court emphasized that under Sections 16 and 74 of the GST Act and Rule 36 of GST Rules, ITC eligibility depends on conditions fulfilled at the time of transaction. The authorities failed to verify GSTR-1A, GSTR-3B, and tax deposits by the seller. The petition was allowed, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with a reasoned order after hearing all stakeholders.
The HC held that the petitioner was entitled to Input Tax Credit (ITC) despite the seller's GST registration being canceled retrospectively. Since the transaction occurred on 06.12.2018 when the seller was validly registered, and the cancellation took effect from 29.01.2020, no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner. The Court emphasized that under Sections 16 and 74 of the GST Act and Rule 36 of GST Rules, ITC eligibility depends on conditions fulfilled at the time of transaction. The authorities failed to verify GSTR-1A, GSTR-3B, and tax deposits by the seller. The petition was allowed, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with a reasoned order after hearing all stakeholders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
