Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Dominant issue: whether the respondent violated Section 171 CGST by not passing on Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits. Reasoning: DGAP admitted partial pass-through of ITC (Rs. 91,45,350) but also identified a prima facie computation requiring Rs. 3,12,78,937 to be passed to 1,104 eligible home buyers; despite a reporting error, the authority held the obligation to remit the larger validated sum. Outcome: respondent ordered to pay Rs. 3,12,78,937 plus interest under Section 133(3)(B) CGST, refund within three months, and file compliance report with the jurisdictional commissioner and DGAP. - AT
Dominant issue: whether the respondent violated Section 171 CGST by not passing on Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits. Reasoning: DGAP admitted partial pass-through of ITC (Rs. 91,45,350) but also identified a prima facie computation requiring Rs. 3,12,78,937 to be passed to 1,104 eligible home buyers; despite a reporting error, the authority held the obligation to remit the larger validated sum. Outcome: respondent ordered to pay Rs. 3,12,78,937 plus interest under Section 133(3)(B) CGST, refund within three months, and file compliance report with the jurisdictional commissioner and DGAP. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
