Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
