Coercive recovery during GST searches is restrained pending scrutiny, preserving normal business operations and requiring adherence to investigation g...
COVID-19 limitation exclusion and destination-specific e-way bills govern revisional timelines and penalties for undocumented third-party plywood deli...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
