Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 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 dismissed the writ petition challenging the reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on grounds of irregular availing from suppliers with cancelled registrations, noting the petitioner conflated provisions of Section 16 with Section 74 of the Act. Section 16 governs eligibility of ITC, while Section 74 addresses proceedings in cases of fraud or willful misstatement. The court emphasized the multi-tiered statutory adjudicatory framework, including appeals under Section 107 and before the Appellate Tribunal, which are competent to examine factual disputes. Given the factual nature of the controversy and the availability of efficacious statutory remedies, the HC declined to interfere via writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed without costs, permitting the petitioner to pursue relief through the prescribed appellate mechanisms.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on grounds of irregular availing from suppliers with cancelled registrations, noting the petitioner conflated provisions of Section 16 with Section 74 of the Act. Section 16 governs eligibility of ITC, while Section 74 addresses proceedings in cases of fraud or willful misstatement. The court emphasized the multi-tiered statutory adjudicatory framework, including appeals under Section 107 and before the Appellate Tribunal, which are competent to examine factual disputes. Given the factual nature of the controversy and the availability of efficacious statutory remedies, the HC declined to interfere via writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed without costs, permitting the petitioner to pursue relief through the prescribed appellate mechanisms.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.