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" ?
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.