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 High Court declined to decide substantive merits of alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit because an efficacious alternative remedy by statutory appeal under Section 107 and Rule 109A remained available and unexhausted, applying the principle that writ jurisdiction should not supplant the statutory appellate forum; petitioner was left free to pursue that remedy. The court also held, following Ambika Traders (SC), that notices under the assessment provisions may consolidate multiple financial years where the statute permits a notice 'for any period' or 'for such periods', and found no reason to quash the impugned proceedings; writ petition dismissed.
The High Court declined to decide substantive merits of alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit because an efficacious alternative remedy by statutory appeal under Section 107 and Rule 109A remained available and unexhausted, applying the principle that writ jurisdiction should not supplant the statutory appellate forum; petitioner was left free to pursue that remedy. The court also held, following Ambika Traders (SC), that notices under the assessment provisions may consolidate multiple financial years where the statute permits a notice 'for any period' or 'for such periods', and found no reason to quash the impugned proceedings; writ petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
