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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The HC declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in a petition challenging the blocking of input tax credit under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, relating to alleged non-existent suppliers. The Court emphasized that Rule 36 requires documentary evidence for claiming input tax credit, and fact-finding on the genuineness of invoices and related records falls within the competence of the adjudicating authority. It held that Rule 86A mandates a reasoned, objective determination based on material evidence before disallowing credit, not mere suspicion. Given the factual nature of the dispute, the HC remanded the matter to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's explanation with an opportunity of hearing within four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, leaving factual adjudication and verification to the statutory authorities.
The HC declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in a petition challenging the blocking of input tax credit under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, relating to alleged non-existent suppliers. The Court emphasized that Rule 36 requires documentary evidence for claiming input tax credit, and fact-finding on the genuineness of invoices and related records falls within the competence of the adjudicating authority. It held that Rule 86A mandates a reasoned, objective determination based on material evidence before disallowing credit, not mere suspicion. Given the factual nature of the dispute, the HC remanded the matter to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's explanation with an opportunity of hearing within four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, leaving factual adjudication and verification to the statutory authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
