Unregistered profit-sharing agreements cannot justify occupation of corporate debtor premises during CIRP; repossession by the Resolution Professional...
AT held that the Respondent acknowledged and did not challenge the DGAP's quantified differential ITC benefit of Rs. 3,55,198/-, voluntarily remitted the same to the recipient and thereby complied with the obligation under Section 171(1) CGST Act, 2017 to pass on ITC benefits by commensurate price reduction. The Tribunal affirmed the DGAP's computation, noted the remedial (not punitive) character of the anti-profiteering provisions, and concluded that continuation of proceedings served no regulatory purpose once compliance was effected and verified. Investigation is accordingly closed, the Respondent's compliance recorded, and the application disposed of with no further action under the Rules warranted.
AT held that the Respondent acknowledged and did not challenge the DGAP's quantified differential ITC benefit of Rs. 3,55,198/-, voluntarily remitted the same to the recipient and thereby complied with the obligation under Section 171(1) CGST Act, 2017 to pass on ITC benefits by commensurate price reduction. The Tribunal affirmed the DGAP's computation, noted the remedial (not punitive) character of the anti-profiteering provisions, and concluded that continuation of proceedings served no regulatory purpose once compliance was effected and verified. Investigation is accordingly closed, the Respondent's compliance recorded, and the application disposed of with no further action under the Rules warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
