Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
