Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
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...
AT held that the DGAP investigation established that the Respondent did not avail any impermissible benefit of input tax credit in respect of post-GST real estate transactions and therefore did not contravene section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report dated 23.05.2025 and concluded there is no liability for anti-profiteering measures against the Respondent. Accordingly, the AT dismissed the allegation of contravention, recorded that no refund, penalty or adjustment under the anti-profiteering regime is warranted, and directed that the DGAP report be given effect as the operative finding in the proceedings.
AT held that the DGAP investigation established that the Respondent did not avail any impermissible benefit of input tax credit in respect of post-GST real estate transactions and therefore did not contravene section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report dated 23.05.2025 and concluded there is no liability for anti-profiteering measures against the Respondent. Accordingly, the AT dismissed the allegation of contravention, recorded that no refund, penalty or adjustment under the anti-profiteering regime is warranted, and directed that the DGAP report be given effect as the operative finding in the proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
