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...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
