Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
