<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (4) TMI 965 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259084</link>
    <description>Admissible input tax credit is to be adjusted first against the dealer&#039;s current-year output tax liability, then against central sales tax liability for that period, with only the remaining balance carried forward. The note explains that an excessive original claim does not prevent adjustment of the credit ultimately found admissible on assessment. Interest is payable only on any tax balance remaining after such adjustment, and penalty does not survive where the admissible credit is correctly given effect to. It also notes that although a procedural objection regarding pre-deposit arose, the substantive tax issue was treated as already settled, so remand was found unnecessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2015 07:47:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383268" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 965 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259084</link>
      <description>Admissible input tax credit is to be adjusted first against the dealer&#039;s current-year output tax liability, then against central sales tax liability for that period, with only the remaining balance carried forward. The note explains that an excessive original claim does not prevent adjustment of the credit ultimately found admissible on assessment. Interest is payable only on any tax balance remaining after such adjustment, and penalty does not survive where the admissible credit is correctly given effect to. It also notes that although a procedural objection regarding pre-deposit arose, the substantive tax issue was treated as already settled, so remand was found unnecessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>