Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
