Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The HC quashed orders dated 26.03.2024 and 30.05.2024 passed by the respondent-Department that reversed/negatived petitioner's Input Tax Credit claim. The court held that while the ITC claim was barred by limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, it fell within the prescribed period under Section 16(5) of the same Act. Consequently, the respondent-Department was restrained from initiating any proceedings against the petitioners based on the impugned orders concerning the limitation issue. The petitioner successfully relied on precedent from another case to support their position. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.
The HC quashed orders dated 26.03.2024 and 30.05.2024 passed by the respondent-Department that reversed/negatived petitioner's Input Tax Credit claim. The court held that while the ITC claim was barred by limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, it fell within the prescribed period under Section 16(5) of the same Act. Consequently, the respondent-Department was restrained from initiating any proceedings against the petitioners based on the impugned orders concerning the limitation issue. The petitioner successfully relied on precedent from another case to support their position. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
