Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
