Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court held that a belated GST appeal concerning reconciliation of input tax credit mismatch could not be rejected on limitation alone where the records showed possible inconsistency in IGST, CGST and SGST credit availment and the authorities had not verified whether the disputed credits and payments were correctly accounted for. Because factual reconciliation was necessary to determine whether excess or short credit had been availed and whether the claimed payments had been given proper effect, the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh disposal on merits without reference to limitation, subject to an additional deposit by the petitioner. If that condition was not met, the authorities were left free to proceed in accordance with law.
The High Court held that a belated GST appeal concerning reconciliation of input tax credit mismatch could not be rejected on limitation alone where the records showed possible inconsistency in IGST, CGST and SGST credit availment and the authorities had not verified whether the disputed credits and payments were correctly accounted for. Because factual reconciliation was necessary to determine whether excess or short credit had been availed and whether the claimed payments had been given proper effect, the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh disposal on merits without reference to limitation, subject to an additional deposit by the petitioner. If that condition was not met, the authorities were left free to proceed in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.