Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.