Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AT dismissed the DGAP's profiteering report and closed proceedings against the Respondent under Section 171, CGST Act, holding there is no admissible material establishing that the Respondent retained an unlawful benefit of input tax credit by failing to reduce prices. The AT noted mixed SKU price movements and absence of document evidence demonstrating overall profiteering; enquiries of 56 recipients showed 50 received ITC-related benefit, one was unregistered, and five were unreachable due to closure/liquidation/death. Consequently the DGAP's concluded profiteering amount was not accepted, no liability was fastened on the Respondent, and the complaint was thereby disposed.
The AT dismissed the DGAP's profiteering report and closed proceedings against the Respondent under Section 171, CGST Act, holding there is no admissible material establishing that the Respondent retained an unlawful benefit of input tax credit by failing to reduce prices. The AT noted mixed SKU price movements and absence of document evidence demonstrating overall profiteering; enquiries of 56 recipients showed 50 received ITC-related benefit, one was unregistered, and five were unreachable due to closure/liquidation/death. Consequently the DGAP's concluded profiteering amount was not accepted, no liability was fastened on the Respondent, and the complaint was thereby disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.