<?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 (5) TMI 2066 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771794</link>
    <description>Input tax credit in the electronic credit ledger was treated as a unified pool rather than as isolated tax compartments, so credit booked under the wrong GST head could not be rejected as ineligible without examining the overall ledger position and utilisation on merits. On that basis, the assessment order and appellate order were set aside, the consequential demand notice was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration within a fixed time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 12:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=825441" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 2066 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771794</link>
      <description>Input tax credit in the electronic credit ledger was treated as a unified pool rather than as isolated tax compartments, so credit booked under the wrong GST head could not be rejected as ineligible without examining the overall ledger position and utilisation on merits. On that basis, the assessment order and appellate order were set aside, the consequential demand notice was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration within a fixed time.</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=771794</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>