Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the penalty imposed under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, for reversal of ITC due to mismatched returns was improperly determined without regard to relevant factors and applicable Circulars. The Tribunal erred by relying on an outdated Circular, failing to consider the subsequent Circular No.5/2021 issued pursuant to this Court's directive mandating a mechanism for return reconciliation. As the assessment and first appellate orders predated these developments, the HC found merit in remanding the matter to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the latest Circular. The question of law was resolved in favor of the State, endorsing the remand for reassessment consistent with current procedural guidelines.
The HC held that the penalty imposed under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, for reversal of ITC due to mismatched returns was improperly determined without regard to relevant factors and applicable Circulars. The Tribunal erred by relying on an outdated Circular, failing to consider the subsequent Circular No.5/2021 issued pursuant to this Court's directive mandating a mechanism for return reconciliation. As the assessment and first appellate orders predated these developments, the HC found merit in remanding the matter to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the latest Circular. The question of law was resolved in favor of the State, endorsing the remand for reassessment consistent with current procedural guidelines.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.