Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Business reorganisation requires recognition of successor's modified return; draft orders against dissolved transferor quashed and fresh review direct...
Pre-commencement R&D deduction denied where business had not commenced; deeming benefit requires tangible start of manufacture or commercial exploitat...
Section 122(1) of the GST enactments was held to prescribe a mandatory penalty once the provision is attracted, because the phrase "whichever is higher" leaves no discretion to impose a lesser amount on proportionality grounds. The High Court rejected reliance on proportionality decisions from labour and excise jurisprudence, and noted that the petitioners were prima facie liable on the material in the assessment orders. It also found no procedural irregularity or lack of reasons in the impugned orders, and held that the statutory appellate remedy must be pursued instead of writ relief. The writ petitions were dismissed, but the petitioners were allowed to file appeals with the 10% pre-deposit requirement dispensed with.
Section 122(1) of the GST enactments was held to prescribe a mandatory penalty once the provision is attracted, because the phrase "whichever is higher" leaves no discretion to impose a lesser amount on proportionality grounds. The High Court rejected reliance on proportionality decisions from labour and excise jurisprudence, and noted that the petitioners were prima facie liable on the material in the assessment orders. It also found no procedural irregularity or lack of reasons in the impugned orders, and held that the statutory appellate remedy must be pursued instead of writ relief. The writ petitions were dismissed, but the petitioners were allowed to file appeals with the 10% pre-deposit requirement dispensed with.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
