Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
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...
Additional input tax credit benefits in construction services must be passed to pre-GST homebuyers through commensurate price reductions under section 171(1) of the CGST Act. Applying the revised computation, including the pre-GST goods component, the determined benefit was quantified; however, documentary evidence accepted in the revised DGAP report showed that the supplier had passed on benefits exceeding that requirement to eligible homebuyers. The revised methodology therefore did not support a profiteering allegation because the full benefit had already been passed on in excess. The proceedings were disposed of with no contravention of section 171 established.
Additional input tax credit benefits in construction services must be passed to pre-GST homebuyers through commensurate price reductions under section 171(1) of the CGST Act. Applying the revised computation, including the pre-GST goods component, the determined benefit was quantified; however, documentary evidence accepted in the revised DGAP report showed that the supplier had passed on benefits exceeding that requirement to eligible homebuyers. The revised methodology therefore did not support a profiteering allegation because the full benefit had already been passed on in excess. The proceedings were disposed of with no contravention of section 171 established.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.