Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Anti-profiteering on cinema tickets required the supplier to pass on GST rate reduction through a commensurate reduction in ticket prices, and the burden to justify any higher pricing lay on the supplier. The Tribunal rejected the defence based on licensing control because no contemporaneous material showed any request, permission, or order for the relevant period, and the respondent's explanations were contradictory. As the DGAP methodology and calculations were not disputed, the profiteering computation was accepted and the amount for 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 was held recoverable with interest. Because the recipients were not identifiable, the amount had to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Funds, and penalty was declined since the penal provision applied only prospectively from 01.01.2020.
Anti-profiteering on cinema tickets required the supplier to pass on GST rate reduction through a commensurate reduction in ticket prices, and the burden to justify any higher pricing lay on the supplier. The Tribunal rejected the defence based on licensing control because no contemporaneous material showed any request, permission, or order for the relevant period, and the respondent's explanations were contradictory. As the DGAP methodology and calculations were not disputed, the profiteering computation was accepted and the amount for 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 was held recoverable with interest. Because the recipients were not identifiable, the amount had to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Funds, and penalty was declined since the penal provision applied only prospectively from 01.01.2020.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
