The Court set aside the GST demand as the adjudicating authority failed to consider the taxpayer’s submissions. It held that lack of reasoning invalidates the order.
Clandestine removal could not be sustained on mere assumptions or third-party statements without corroborative evidence and statutory compliance under Section 9D.
The SC refused to interfere where the High Court had quashed reassessment based on binding precedents. It held that no ground existed to reopen findings already settled by earlier rulings.
The Court quashed all notices and orders as the matter was identical to earlier decisions. It ruled that consistency with precedent requires setting aside such proceedings.
The Court held that ITC cannot be denied solely because supplier registrations were cancelled retrospectively. It ruled that absence of evidence of collusion requires fresh verification before denying credit.
The Court held that input tax credit can be claimed regardless of the month of purchase. It ruled that the amendment to Section 10(3) is clarificatory and applies retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) improperly admitted additional evidence without satisfying Rule 46A conditions or recording reasons. It emphasized that procedural compliance is mandatory and failure to follow it invalidates the relief granted.*
The 30% Disallowance Trap in Section 35(b) of the Income Tax Act, 2025: When a Wrong TDS Payment Code Under Section 393 Triggers Full Business Expenditure Disallowance — The Code 1026 vs. Code 1027 Paradox The Income Tax Act, 2025, effective from 1st April 2026, consolidates all non-salary TDS obligations into a single Section 393, […]
Gujarat AAAR held that ITC validly availed can be used across different business lines under the same GSTIN. The ruling removes the need for strict nexus between inputs and outputs.
Paying RCM tax through DRC-03 does not allow ITC claim, leading to permanent loss. The correct method is through GSTR-3B with self-invoice to preserve credit.
