Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1501 to 1520 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 74 of the GST Act cannot be invoked without material showing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax; where the taxpayer reversed the disputed input tax credit before notice and the Revenue showed no conscious involvement in any fraudulent arrangement, the proceedings were held unsustainable. Interest under Section 50 was also refused because wrongly availed credit had been reversed before the show cause notice and the Electronic Credit Ledger retained surplus balance, so utilisation was not established. A further demand and penalty on the same reversal was treated as double taxation and beyond jurisdiction, and the impugned orders were quashed.
Section 74 of the GST Act cannot be invoked without material showing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax; where the taxpayer reversed the disputed input tax credit before notice and the Revenue showed no conscious involvement in any fraudulent arrangement, the proceedings were held unsustainable. Interest under Section 50 was also refused because wrongly availed credit had been reversed before the show cause notice and the Electronic Credit Ledger retained surplus balance, so utilisation was not established. A further demand and penalty on the same reversal was treated as double taxation and beyond jurisdiction, and the impugned orders were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.