Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Petitioner admitted wrongful availment and retention of excess...
Interest on Wrongful Input Tax Credit is mandatory where excess transitional credit was retained and later reversed, and related objections were rejected.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Petitioner admitted wrongful availment and retention of excess transitional input tax credit and later reversed it; interest liability for wrongful availment is mandatory under the applicable GST interest provisions and was computed for the period of retention. The adjudicating and appellate authorities considered and rejected petitioner's contentions that interest required a separate show-cause notice, should be computed only on net tax, or that mere portal reflection did not constitute utilisation; both orders were upheld and the petition dismissed.
Petitioner admitted wrongful availment and retention of excess transitional input tax credit and later reversed it; interest liability for wrongful availment is mandatory under the applicable GST interest provisions and was computed for the period of retention. The adjudicating and appellate authorities considered and rejected petitioner's contentions that interest required a separate show-cause notice, should be computed only on net tax, or that mere portal reflection did not constitute utilisation; both orders were upheld and the petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.