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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
