Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
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...
Project-wise anti-profiteering analysis under GST upheld where the Tribunal accepted a case-specific methodology for comparing pre-GST and post-GST ITC, allocated the benefit across similarly situated homebuyers, and rejected objections on natural justice, scope of inquiry, and time limits. It found that additional input tax credit had arisen in the project, that the respondent had not passed on the full recipient-specific benefit, and that excess benefit given to some buyers could not offset shortfall owed to others. The balance amount was sustained with 18% compensatory interest, but penalty was declined because the penal provision was held inapplicable to the period in question.
Project-wise anti-profiteering analysis under GST upheld where the Tribunal accepted a case-specific methodology for comparing pre-GST and post-GST ITC, allocated the benefit across similarly situated homebuyers, and rejected objections on natural justice, scope of inquiry, and time limits. It found that additional input tax credit had arisen in the project, that the respondent had not passed on the full recipient-specific benefit, and that excess benefit given to some buyers could not offset shortfall owed to others. The balance amount was sustained with 18% compensatory interest, but penalty was declined because the penal provision was held inapplicable to the period in question.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.