Expenses for overseas film shooting treated as services availed outside India, so no reverse charge service tax liability; cenvat reversals and penalt...
Electricity consumptionbased clandestine production estimates under the repealed Central Excise Act found insufficient; demand quashed and appeals all...
Expiry of statutory limitation for challenging a GST order was decisive where the petitioner failed to substantiate lawful availment of input tax credit and did not refute reliance on invoices from a supplier alleged to issue fake invoices; consequence: the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication. The adjudicating authority is directed to decide on merits subject to a protective condition requiring the taxpayer to deposit 25% of the disputed tax from its electronic cash register within thirty days, balancing revenue protection with the taxpayers opportunity for merits adjudication.
Expiry of statutory limitation for challenging a GST order was decisive where the petitioner failed to substantiate lawful availment of input tax credit and did not refute reliance on invoices from a supplier alleged to issue fake invoices; consequence: the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication. The adjudicating authority is directed to decide on merits subject to a protective condition requiring the taxpayer to deposit 25% of the disputed tax from its electronic cash register within thirty days, balancing revenue protection with the taxpayers opportunity for merits adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
