Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
The HC allowed the petitioner's challenge to an appellate order under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had belatedly filed an appeal against a Section 74 order dated 19th January 2021 covering the tax period April 2018 to November 2019, depositing 12.5% of disputed tax under the belated filing scheme. However, Rs.1,45,188 had been recovered from the petitioner's credit ledger against demand id ZD190121004969C, which was not properly credited in Form GST APL-04. Since the total tax demand in Form GST DRC-07 was Rs.1,14,736 and Rs.1,45,188 had already been recovered, no further demand could be raised. The HC found the recovered amount should have been adjusted against principal tax demand first, remanding the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration due to lack of clarity in the order.
The HC allowed the petitioner's challenge to an appellate order under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had belatedly filed an appeal against a Section 74 order dated 19th January 2021 covering the tax period April 2018 to November 2019, depositing 12.5% of disputed tax under the belated filing scheme. However, Rs.1,45,188 had been recovered from the petitioner's credit ledger against demand id ZD190121004969C, which was not properly credited in Form GST APL-04. Since the total tax demand in Form GST DRC-07 was Rs.1,14,736 and Rs.1,45,188 had already been recovered, no further demand could be raised. The HC found the recovered amount should have been adjusted against principal tax demand first, remanding the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration due to lack of clarity in the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
