Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
AT, in a profiteering matter concerning the period 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019, held that interest at 18% under Rule 133(3)(c) of the CGST Rules was not leviable since the investigation period did not substantially fall within the operative period of that provision. AT further held that no penalty was imposable as the statutory provisions enabling penalty came into force only in 2020, subsequent to the last date of the alleged profiteering. The concerned Commissioner was directed to submit a compliance report within four months, and the appeal was disposed of.
AT, in a profiteering matter concerning the period 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019, held that interest at 18% under Rule 133(3)(c) of the CGST Rules was not leviable since the investigation period did not substantially fall within the operative period of that provision. AT further held that no penalty was imposable as the statutory provisions enabling penalty came into force only in 2020, subsequent to the last date of the alleged profiteering. The concerned Commissioner was directed to submit a compliance report within four months, and the appeal was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
