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, following consideration of the DGAP report and documentary verification, the DGAP's methodology for apportioning ITC to project costs was appropriate and captured the economic effect of GST implementation. The Tribunal found that no reduction in GST rate nor incremental benefit of Input Tax Credit accrued to the Respondent in respect of the three impugned projects; accordingly, the requirements of Section 171 of the CGST Act are not attracted. Proceedings against the Respondent in relation to those projects were dismissed and the application disposed of.
The AT held that, following consideration of the DGAP report and documentary verification, the DGAP's methodology for apportioning ITC to project costs was appropriate and captured the economic effect of GST implementation. The Tribunal found that no reduction in GST rate nor incremental benefit of Input Tax Credit accrued to the Respondent in respect of the three impugned projects; accordingly, the requirements of Section 171 of the CGST Act are not attracted. Proceedings against the Respondent in relation to those projects were dismissed and the application disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.