Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 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 held that orders blocking debit from taxpayers' Electronic Credit Ledgers (ECL) beyond the Input Tax Credit (ITC) available at the time are unsustainable and set aside such entries to that extent, allowing the petitioners. The court construed Rule 86A as an emergent, protective power permitting the Commissioner or an authorized officer to temporally withhold available ITC where there is reason to believe credits were fraudulently availed or ineligible, but not as a recovery mechanism. Such withholding may be exercised without prior show-cause notice given its protective character, yet it cannot bar debits exceeding the actual ECL balance. Arguments based on differing HC pronouncements and interim Supreme Court orders were rejected on the facts.
The HC held that orders blocking debit from taxpayers' Electronic Credit Ledgers (ECL) beyond the Input Tax Credit (ITC) available at the time are unsustainable and set aside such entries to that extent, allowing the petitioners. The court construed Rule 86A as an emergent, protective power permitting the Commissioner or an authorized officer to temporally withhold available ITC where there is reason to believe credits were fraudulently availed or ineligible, but not as a recovery mechanism. Such withholding may be exercised without prior show-cause notice given its protective character, yet it cannot bar debits exceeding the actual ECL balance. Arguments based on differing HC pronouncements and interim Supreme Court orders were rejected on the facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
