Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
