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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC partially allowed the petition challenging GST adjudication proceedings under Section 73 following audit under Section 65 of the GST Act. The primary legal issue concerned interpretation of "plant or machinery" under Section 17(5)(d) regarding whether buildings qualify as "plant" for input tax credit restrictions. The Court quashed the impugned adjudication order dated 28.02.2025 and restored proceedings to the first respondent for fresh consideration, ensuring complete adjudication. The petitioner's deposited 10% of the demand amount was directed to be held by respondents pending conclusion of restored proceedings. The matter was remanded for proper reconsideration of the classification issue.
The HC partially allowed the petition challenging GST adjudication proceedings under Section 73 following audit under Section 65 of the GST Act. The primary legal issue concerned interpretation of "plant or machinery" under Section 17(5)(d) regarding whether buildings qualify as "plant" for input tax credit restrictions. The Court quashed the impugned adjudication order dated 28.02.2025 and restored proceedings to the first respondent for fresh consideration, ensuring complete adjudication. The petitioner's deposited 10% of the demand amount was directed to be held by respondents pending conclusion of restored proceedings. The matter was remanded for proper reconsideration of the classification issue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
