Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
HC held that the recovery of tax dues from the petitioner was premature and in violation of statutory provisions under Sections 78 and 79 of CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The Recovery Officer was mandated to wait three months from the date of service order before initiating recovery proceedings. The impugned orders rejecting Input Tax Credit claims were set aside due to retrospective amendment under Section 16(5). Respondent authorities were directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs.50,75,214/- within two weeks, with 12% per annum interest in case of default. The second appeal could not be preferred as the Tribunal was not constituted, effectively suspending the appeal timeline.
HC held that the recovery of tax dues from the petitioner was premature and in violation of statutory provisions under Sections 78 and 79 of CGST/BGST Act, 2017. The Recovery Officer was mandated to wait three months from the date of service order before initiating recovery proceedings. The impugned orders rejecting Input Tax Credit claims were set aside due to retrospective amendment under Section 16(5). Respondent authorities were directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs.50,75,214/- within two weeks, with 12% per annum interest in case of default. The second appeal could not be preferred as the Tribunal was not constituted, effectively suspending the appeal timeline.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
