<?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 (7) TMI 906 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795020</link>
    <description>Section 16(5)&#039;s retrospective benefit for input tax credit is applicable where returns for 2018-19 were filed before the prescribed cut-off, removing the delayed-availment restriction otherwise arising under Section 16(4). The related tax demand was treated as unsustainable. Alleged short payment required factual verification where voluntary-payment and demand figures corresponded. Input tax credit mismatch arising from a supplier&#039;s non-uploading of returns, including insolvency-related circumstances, required fresh determination because it lacked adequate examination. Penalty, being consequential to the tax demand and unresolved issues, required re-adjudication rather than continuation in its existing form.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 08:21:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 906 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795020</link>
      <description>Section 16(5)&#039;s retrospective benefit for input tax credit is applicable where returns for 2018-19 were filed before the prescribed cut-off, removing the delayed-availment restriction otherwise arising under Section 16(4). The related tax demand was treated as unsustainable. Alleged short payment required factual verification where voluntary-payment and demand figures corresponded. Input tax credit mismatch arising from a supplier&#039;s non-uploading of returns, including insolvency-related circumstances, required fresh determination because it lacked adequate examination. Penalty, being consequential to the tax demand and unresolved issues, required re-adjudication rather than continuation in its existing form.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>