Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
HC set aside and quashed the Appellate Authority's order dated 24.01.2023 rejecting Petitioner's refund claim for unutilized input tax credit under Section 54(3) of CGST Act and WBGST Act. The Appellate Authority improperly rejected additional documents including shipping bills without providing cogent reasons regarding their relevancy or admissibility. HC held that Rule 112(4) of CGST Rules empowers the Appellate Authority to admit additional evidence for effective adjudication. The Authority failed to exercise discretion judiciously by refusing to consider crucial evidentiary records submitted during appellate proceedings. Respondents failed to demonstrate that submitted documents were irrelevant or inadmissible for just adjudication. Petition disposed off favorably.
HC set aside and quashed the Appellate Authority's order dated 24.01.2023 rejecting Petitioner's refund claim for unutilized input tax credit under Section 54(3) of CGST Act and WBGST Act. The Appellate Authority improperly rejected additional documents including shipping bills without providing cogent reasons regarding their relevancy or admissibility. HC held that Rule 112(4) of CGST Rules empowers the Appellate Authority to admit additional evidence for effective adjudication. The Authority failed to exercise discretion judiciously by refusing to consider crucial evidentiary records submitted during appellate proceedings. Respondents failed to demonstrate that submitted documents were irrelevant or inadmissible for just adjudication. Petition disposed off favorably.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
