<?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>2025 (1) TMI 1425 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765360</link>
    <description>Input tax credit denial based on late filing of GSTR-3B under the earlier time limit had to be reconsidered after the later extension under Section 16(5) of the CGST/SGST regime. As the impugned assessment did not account for the extended limitation and the taxpayer was entitled to be heard afresh, the demand and penalty could not be sustained on the existing record. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in light of Section 16(5).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2025 09:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=793229" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1425 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765360</link>
      <description>Input tax credit denial based on late filing of GSTR-3B under the earlier time limit had to be reconsidered after the later extension under Section 16(5) of the CGST/SGST regime. As the impugned assessment did not account for the extended limitation and the taxpayer was entitled to be heard afresh, the demand and penalty could not be sustained on the existing record. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in light of Section 16(5).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765360</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>