<?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>2026 (6) TMI 791 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793410</link>
    <description>Input tax credit on services received from a foreign supplier under reverse charge was treated as admissible where the recipient issued the self-invoice and discharged the tax liability, because the relevant credit document was the self-invoice under the GST rules rather than the supplier&#039;s invoice. Distribution of common input service credit to other registered units was also treated as not illegal for the period July 2017 to March 2019, since the unamended GST provision was enabling and did not then make Input Service Distributor registration mandatory; the later amendment was prospective. The demand and penalty based on ineligible credit and alleged unlawful distribution therefore could not be sustained, and the impugned order was quashed to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 15:19:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 791 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793410</link>
      <description>Input tax credit on services received from a foreign supplier under reverse charge was treated as admissible where the recipient issued the self-invoice and discharged the tax liability, because the relevant credit document was the self-invoice under the GST rules rather than the supplier&#039;s invoice. Distribution of common input service credit to other registered units was also treated as not illegal for the period July 2017 to March 2019, since the unamended GST provision was enabling and did not then make Input Service Distributor registration mandatory; the later amendment was prospective. The demand and penalty based on ineligible credit and alleged unlawful distribution therefore could not be sustained, and the impugned order was quashed to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793410</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>