Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2541 to 2560 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 171 required the benefit of a GST rate reduction to be passed on through a corresponding price reduction, and the Tribunal found profiteering where cinema ticket prices were kept at the same cum-tax level by increasing the base price. It upheld the DGAP's computation, including GST in the profiteered amount because the excess collection itself was tax-inclusive and not lawfully due. The Tribunal also held that interest under Rule 133(3)(c) applied only prospectively from 28.06.2019, but declined penalty because the penal provision could not operate retrospectively for the relevant period. The profiteered amount was directed to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund with interest from 28.06.2019.
Section 171 required the benefit of a GST rate reduction to be passed on through a corresponding price reduction, and the Tribunal found profiteering where cinema ticket prices were kept at the same cum-tax level by increasing the base price. It upheld the DGAP's computation, including GST in the profiteered amount because the excess collection itself was tax-inclusive and not lawfully due. The Tribunal also held that interest under Rule 133(3)(c) applied only prospectively from 28.06.2019, but declined penalty because the penal provision could not operate retrospectively for the relevant period. The profiteered amount was directed to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund with interest from 28.06.2019.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.