Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
