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...
HC set aside the appellate authority's non-speaking order that denied Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner on supplies from a supplier whose GST registration was cancelled retrospectively. The HC found the appellate order relied solely on retrospective cancellation without addressing documentary evidence tendered by the petitioner (tax invoices, e-way bills, transport and bank records, party ledgers) or whether statutory conditions for availing ITC were satisfied. Applying controlling precedent on similar facts, the court held retrospective cancellation alone cannot automatically deprive a recipient of ITC. The impugned order was quashed and the petition disposed of, remitting matters for fresh consideration consistent with this judgment.
HC set aside the appellate authority's non-speaking order that denied Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner on supplies from a supplier whose GST registration was cancelled retrospectively. The HC found the appellate order relied solely on retrospective cancellation without addressing documentary evidence tendered by the petitioner (tax invoices, e-way bills, transport and bank records, party ledgers) or whether statutory conditions for availing ITC were satisfied. Applying controlling precedent on similar facts, the court held retrospective cancellation alone cannot automatically deprive a recipient of ITC. The impugned order was quashed and the petition disposed of, remitting matters for fresh consideration consistent with this judgment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
