Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Respondent resorted to profiteering by not reducing selling price commensurately despite GST rate reduction from 28% to 18% on cinema tickets above Rs. 100, from 01.01.2019 to 05.02.2019, profiteering Rs. 13,99,061 including GST. Respondent directed to reduce prices keeping rate reduction in view, having revised ticket price from Rs. 150 to Rs. 138 from 06.02.2019 depicting commensurate benefit passing. Respondent denied rate reduction benefit to customers violating Section 171(1) of CGST Act, 2017, committing offence u/s 171(3A) inserted from 01.01.2020, hence penalty u/s 171(3A) cannot be imposed retrospectively for said period.
Respondent resorted to profiteering by not reducing selling price commensurately despite GST rate reduction from 28% to 18% on cinema tickets above Rs. 100, from 01.01.2019 to 05.02.2019, profiteering Rs. 13,99,061 including GST. Respondent directed to reduce prices keeping rate reduction in view, having revised ticket price from Rs. 150 to Rs. 138 from 06.02.2019 depicting commensurate benefit passing. Respondent denied rate reduction benefit to customers violating Section 171(1) of CGST Act, 2017, committing offence u/s 171(3A) inserted from 01.01.2020, hence penalty u/s 171(3A) cannot be imposed retrospectively for said period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.