Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
The dominant issue was whether an operational creditor's Section 9 application was barred by Section 10A because the defaults pertained to invoices allegedly falling within the excluded period. The tribunal held that the dates of default for two invoices relating to one project arose beyond the Section 10A prohibited period; hence, dismissal solely on Section 10A was legally untenable. As the debt under these two invoices exceeded the Section 4 threshold of Rs 1 crore, the adjudicating authority was required to consider them on merits. The impugned dismissal was set aside, the Section 9 application was restored, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration limited to those invoices - NCLAT
The dominant issue was whether an operational creditor's Section 9 application was barred by Section 10A because the defaults pertained to invoices allegedly falling within the excluded period. The tribunal held that the dates of default for two invoices relating to one project arose beyond the Section 10A prohibited period; hence, dismissal solely on Section 10A was legally untenable. As the debt under these two invoices exceeded the Section 4 threshold of Rs 1 crore, the adjudicating authority was required to consider them on merits. The impugned dismissal was set aside, the Section 9 application was restored, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration limited to those invoices - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.