Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The HC set aside the appellate authority's order dated February 28, 2023, to the extent it pertained to three shipping bills (nos. 607682 and 607685 dated October 1, 2020, and 607467 dated October 22, 2020). The court ruled that petitioner should be permitted to rely on shipping bills now properly certified by the Superintendent of Customs, rejecting the administrative denial of unutilised input credit refund that had been based primarily on the technicality that six shipping bills were signed by the Customs Inspector rather than the Superintendent. The application was disposed of accordingly, allowing petitioner to proceed with the refund claim using the properly certified documentation.
The HC set aside the appellate authority's order dated February 28, 2023, to the extent it pertained to three shipping bills (nos. 607682 and 607685 dated October 1, 2020, and 607467 dated October 22, 2020). The court ruled that petitioner should be permitted to rely on shipping bills now properly certified by the Superintendent of Customs, rejecting the administrative denial of unutilised input credit refund that had been based primarily on the technicality that six shipping bills were signed by the Customs Inspector rather than the Superintendent. The application was disposed of accordingly, allowing petitioner to proceed with the refund claim using the properly certified documentation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
