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...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
