Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

8 months ago

•View on X

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—”š—µš—ŗš—²š—±š—®š—Æš—®š—± š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—–š—¹š—¼š˜€š—¶š—»š—“ š—•š—®š—¹š—®š—»š—°š—² š—¼š—³ š—–š—²š—»š˜ƒš—®š˜ š—–š—æš—²š—±š—¶š˜ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—æš—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "No tax demand can be sustained if the correct closing balance of Cenvat Credit is declared in the books and supported by valid invoices."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: Industrial Extension Bureau š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Whether the appellant is liable for tax demand due to discrepancies in Cenvat Credit closing balances. š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: The appellant declared a closing balance of ₹1,19,12,078/- in their accounts, but the ST-3 return showed ₹1,01,53,009/-. A demand was raised and upheld by the Commissioner.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal found that the declared balance of ₹31,67,294/- was validly supported by invoices, proving eligibility for Cenvat Credit. The appeal was allowed, and consequential relief granted.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: Industrial Extension Bureau vs. C.S.T. – Service Tax Ahmedabad š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 19 January 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling emphasizes that valid documentation is key to proving Cenvat Credit entitlement.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on X

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own