Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
