Tax authority's substitution of projected figures with actuals overturned; original acquisition valuation upheld; transfer pricing issues remitted for...
Beneficial owner held liable for differential customs duty; royalties added under Rule 10(1)(c); confiscation, penalties under s.111(m), s.114A, s.112...
Excess ITC was denied under Section 16(4) due to non-reconciliation between GSTR-3B and related disclosures, and the taxpayer had not responded to the show cause notice. The Court found a prima facie overlap in the demand confirmed in the impugned order and, to prevent unjust duplication while ensuring revenue protection, directed the taxpayer to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and file a reply within 30 days. Upon such compliance, the adjudicating authority was directed to pass a fresh order on merits within three months and the bank account attachment would stand vacated; the petition was disposed. - HC
Excess ITC was denied under Section 16(4) due to non-reconciliation between GSTR-3B and related disclosures, and the taxpayer had not responded to the show cause notice. The Court found a prima facie overlap in the demand confirmed in the impugned order and, to prevent unjust duplication while ensuring revenue protection, directed the taxpayer to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and file a reply within 30 days. Upon such compliance, the adjudicating authority was directed to pass a fresh order on merits within three months and the bank account attachment would stand vacated; the petition was disposed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
