Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The respondent commenced a real estate project "Swastik Heights" in the post-GST regime, with commencement certificate issued on 08.03.2018 and GST registration effective from 27.02.2018. Initially, GST was charged at 8% with input tax credit (ITC). From 01.04.2019, the respondent had the option to charge either 8% GST with ITC or 1% without ITC, but continued charging 8% with ITC. The Commission observed that since the project commenced in the post-GST period, there was no benefit of rate reduction or additional ITC compared to the pre-GST period that the respondent was obligated to pass on to buyers u/s 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the allegations of profiteering were found untenable, and proceedings were dropped.
The respondent commenced a real estate project "Swastik Heights" in the post-GST regime, with commencement certificate issued on 08.03.2018 and GST registration effective from 27.02.2018. Initially, GST was charged at 8% with input tax credit (ITC). From 01.04.2019, the respondent had the option to charge either 8% GST with ITC or 1% without ITC, but continued charging 8% with ITC. The Commission observed that since the project commenced in the post-GST period, there was no benefit of rate reduction or additional ITC compared to the pre-GST period that the respondent was obligated to pass on to buyers u/s 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the allegations of profiteering were found untenable, and proceedings were dropped.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
