Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The HC held that the impugned order failed to apply sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST Act, which was made effective from 1 July 2017 and prescribes that, notwithstanding sub-section (4), a registered person may claim input tax credit for invoices/debit notes relating to FY 2017-18 through FY 2020-21 in any return filed up to 30 November 2021. Because the authority did not consider the implications of s.16(5) when deciding the dispute between the anonymized petitioner and respondent, the HC set aside the decision and remitted the matter to the authority for fresh adjudication in light of s.16(5). The petition was disposed by remand.
The HC held that the impugned order failed to apply sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST Act, which was made effective from 1 July 2017 and prescribes that, notwithstanding sub-section (4), a registered person may claim input tax credit for invoices/debit notes relating to FY 2017-18 through FY 2020-21 in any return filed up to 30 November 2021. Because the authority did not consider the implications of s.16(5) when deciding the dispute between the anonymized petitioner and respondent, the HC set aside the decision and remitted the matter to the authority for fresh adjudication in light of s.16(5). The petition was disposed by remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
