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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
AT held that the respondent (sole proprietor/distributor) contravened section 171, CGST Act by failing to pass on the benefit of a GST rate reduction on cosmetic products. The statutory presumption in favour of the investigating authority was not rebutted for lack of cogent, unambiguous evidence, notwithstanding contractual provisions allocating pricing discretion between the distributor and manufacturer. Consequently the respondent is directed to remit Rs. 3,31,879 with interest at 18% p.a. calculated from the date of collection of the excess (1.4.2018-31.12.2018) to the Central/State consumer welfare fund under section 57 within three months, failing which recovery shall be effected by the jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner.
AT held that the respondent (sole proprietor/distributor) contravened section 171, CGST Act by failing to pass on the benefit of a GST rate reduction on cosmetic products. The statutory presumption in favour of the investigating authority was not rebutted for lack of cogent, unambiguous evidence, notwithstanding contractual provisions allocating pricing discretion between the distributor and manufacturer. Consequently the respondent is directed to remit Rs. 3,31,879 with interest at 18% p.a. calculated from the date of collection of the excess (1.4.2018-31.12.2018) to the Central/State consumer welfare fund under section 57 within three months, failing which recovery shall be effected by the jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
