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...
An adjudication order alleging ineligible input tax credit on account of a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A could not stand where the authority failed to consider the reconciliation statement specifically furnished by the taxpayer and did not give an effective opportunity to explain the discrepancy. The HC held that, because the dispute was factual and the reply referred to reconciliation material in Annexure-1, the authority was required to re-examine that material before concluding that no reconciliation had been produced. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after giving the taxpayer an opportunity to explain the ITC mismatch.
An adjudication order alleging ineligible input tax credit on account of a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A could not stand where the authority failed to consider the reconciliation statement specifically furnished by the taxpayer and did not give an effective opportunity to explain the discrepancy. The HC held that, because the dispute was factual and the reply referred to reconciliation material in Annexure-1, the authority was required to re-examine that material before concluding that no reconciliation had been produced. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after giving the taxpayer an opportunity to explain the ITC mismatch.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
