Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
