Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appeal and assessment orders. The court held that under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, the petitioner was entitled to claim input tax credit for Financial Years 2017-2018 through 2020-2021, which was previously rejected. The credit was sought within the prescribed timeline of 30.11.2021, specifically on 31.10.2019. The matter was remanded to the first respondent to issue a fresh assessment order in accordance with Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions governing input tax credit claims.
HC allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appeal and assessment orders. The court held that under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, the petitioner was entitled to claim input tax credit for Financial Years 2017-2018 through 2020-2021, which was previously rejected. The credit was sought within the prescribed timeline of 30.11.2021, specifically on 31.10.2019. The matter was remanded to the first respondent to issue a fresh assessment order in accordance with Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions governing input tax credit claims.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.