Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
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.