Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
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 dismissed the writ petition filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 107(1) of the GST Act, declining to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. The petition challenged the disallowance of ITC on grounds that the supplier failed to discharge tax liability by filing GSTR-3B returns for supplies made during August to November 2019. The court held that the Assessing Authority's demand, based on examination of records under Section 74, was proper. Questions regarding the recipient's entitlement to ITC despite the supplier's non-compliance are factual and legal issues reserved for the appellate authority under Section 107, which is empowered to reappreciate evidence. The petitioner was permitted to pursue remedy before the appellate forum, and the court clarified that discussion of facts was not an opinion on merits. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC dismissed the writ petition filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 107(1) of the GST Act, declining to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. The petition challenged the disallowance of ITC on grounds that the supplier failed to discharge tax liability by filing GSTR-3B returns for supplies made during August to November 2019. The court held that the Assessing Authority's demand, based on examination of records under Section 74, was proper. Questions regarding the recipient's entitlement to ITC despite the supplier's non-compliance are factual and legal issues reserved for the appellate authority under Section 107, which is empowered to reappreciate evidence. The petitioner was permitted to pursue remedy before the appellate forum, and the court clarified that discussion of facts was not an opinion on merits. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
