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 upheld the denial of input tax credit (ITC) claimed on invoices related to motor vehicle purchase, repair, and maintenance, finding violations of Sections 16(1), 16(2), and 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. The petitioner failed to demonstrate payment to sundry creditors within the mandatory 180-day period as required under Section 16(2), relying solely on a chart without furnishing corroborative bank statements or documentary evidence. The Court affirmed the proper officer's conclusion that the petitioner did not substantiate timely payment, thereby justifying disallowance of excess ITC availed in GSTR-3B vis-Ã -vis GSTR-2A. Jurisdictional validity of the authority's action was not disputed, and partial compliance with the order was acknowledged. The petition challenging the officer's evaluation of evidence was dismissed, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.
The HC upheld the denial of input tax credit (ITC) claimed on invoices related to motor vehicle purchase, repair, and maintenance, finding violations of Sections 16(1), 16(2), and 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. The petitioner failed to demonstrate payment to sundry creditors within the mandatory 180-day period as required under Section 16(2), relying solely on a chart without furnishing corroborative bank statements or documentary evidence. The Court affirmed the proper officer's conclusion that the petitioner did not substantiate timely payment, thereby justifying disallowance of excess ITC availed in GSTR-3B vis-Ã -vis GSTR-2A. Jurisdictional validity of the authority's action was not disputed, and partial compliance with the order was acknowledged. The petition challenging the officer's evaluation of evidence was dismissed, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
