Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.