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...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
