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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 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 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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
