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...
The AT upheld the DGAP's finding that the respondent failed to pass on a commensurate reduction in GST on restaurant services, concluding the statutory rebuttable presumption under s.171 CGST Act was not discharged and that the investigating authority permissibly examined all products supplied by the registered person. The Tribunal held the respondent violated s.171(1) (and thereby contravened s.171(3A)) by denying tax-rate benefits to consumers. However, because s.171(3A)'s penal provision took effect after the period of contravention, the AT declined to impose the retrospective penal sanction; liability for the breach was affirmed but no penalty was imposed under the later-enacted provision.
The AT upheld the DGAP's finding that the respondent failed to pass on a commensurate reduction in GST on restaurant services, concluding the statutory rebuttable presumption under s.171 CGST Act was not discharged and that the investigating authority permissibly examined all products supplied by the registered person. The Tribunal held the respondent violated s.171(1) (and thereby contravened s.171(3A)) by denying tax-rate benefits to consumers. However, because s.171(3A)'s penal provision took effect after the period of contravention, the AT declined to impose the retrospective penal sanction; liability for the breach was affirmed but no penalty was imposed under the later-enacted provision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
