Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Section 16(5) was held to contain a non-obstante clause that overrides the time bar in Section 16(4) for the specified financial years, so input tax credit could not be denied solely for delay where the returns were filed before 30.11.2021. Because the impugned order rejected the claim only on the basis of Section 16(4), and the returns had been filed on 30.09.2020, the Court set aside the order-in-original and the show cause notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication under Section 16(5), leaving other contentions open.
Section 16(5) was held to contain a non-obstante clause that overrides the time bar in Section 16(4) for the specified financial years, so input tax credit could not be denied solely for delay where the returns were filed before 30.11.2021. Because the impugned order rejected the claim only on the basis of Section 16(4), and the returns had been filed on 30.09.2020, the Court set aside the order-in-original and the show cause notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication under Section 16(5), leaving other contentions open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
