Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
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 
