Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The AT held that the Respondent engaged in profiteering under Section 171, CGST Act, by failing to pass on GST rate reductions effective 01.10.2019; the statutory rebuttable presumption that reduced tax rates require commensurate price reductions was not successfully rebutted. The Respondent's claim of COVID-related additional costs was found unsubstantiated and after-the-fact. The AT directed recovery of Rs. 31,28,631 with interest at 18% p.a. from 01.10.2019 until realization, and ordered deposit of the realized amount into the Consumer Welfare Fund to be apportioned equally between the Centre and States.
The AT held that the Respondent engaged in profiteering under Section 171, CGST Act, by failing to pass on GST rate reductions effective 01.10.2019; the statutory rebuttable presumption that reduced tax rates require commensurate price reductions was not successfully rebutted. The Respondent's claim of COVID-related additional costs was found unsubstantiated and after-the-fact. The AT directed recovery of Rs. 31,28,631 with interest at 18% p.a. from 01.10.2019 until realization, and ordered deposit of the realized amount into the Consumer Welfare Fund to be apportioned equally between the Centre and States.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
