Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Market value for captive electricity consumption follows industrial consumer tariffs, supporting profit computation for the power generation deduction...
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 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
