Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
