Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
The HC set aside the tax authority's order dated 07.05.2024 confirming the entire original tax demand against the petitioner. The court found that the impugned order failed to consider that petitioner had remitted 58% of the differential amount through electronic credit ledger debit. The HC held that no credit was given for this substantial remittance, necessitating reconsideration. The matter was remanded to the first respondent with directions to reconsider the tax demand after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and accounting for remittances made via electronic credit ledger debit. The petition was disposed of by way of remand.
The HC set aside the tax authority's order dated 07.05.2024 confirming the entire original tax demand against the petitioner. The court found that the impugned order failed to consider that petitioner had remitted 58% of the differential amount through electronic credit ledger debit. The HC held that no credit was given for this substantial remittance, necessitating reconsideration. The matter was remanded to the first respondent with directions to reconsider the tax demand after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and accounting for remittances made via electronic credit ledger debit. The petition was disposed of by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
