Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Mere deposit of cash in an electronic cash ledger does not amount to payment of GST unless the amount is appropriated to the Government exchequer under Section 49(1) read with Rule 87(6) and (7); where appropriation occurs later, the tax liability is discharged only then and interest remains payable for the period of delay. Input tax credit arising from reverse charge could not be availed before appropriation, but separate recovery of the wrongly availed credit was not justified after the taxpayer later made the debit entries and the amount stood appropriated. The Court also found that the question whether the omission reflected inadvertence or suppression with intent to evade tax required fresh factual consideration, and the composite order for two tax periods was set aside with remand for separate orders.
Mere deposit of cash in an electronic cash ledger does not amount to payment of GST unless the amount is appropriated to the Government exchequer under Section 49(1) read with Rule 87(6) and (7); where appropriation occurs later, the tax liability is discharged only then and interest remains payable for the period of delay. Input tax credit arising from reverse charge could not be availed before appropriation, but separate recovery of the wrongly availed credit was not justified after the taxpayer later made the debit entries and the amount stood appropriated. The Court also found that the question whether the omission reflected inadvertence or suppression with intent to evade tax required fresh factual consideration, and the composite order for two tax periods was set aside with remand for separate orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
