Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
