Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
Penalty for estimation of income and disallowances for tax non-deduction clarified: estimation-based penalties not sustainable; additions without conc...
Relevant product market was identified as use of Crystalline Durability Admixture in heavy infrastructure projects and geographic market as India; the Maharashtra-only market pleaded by the appellant was rejected for lack of basis. The respondent authority (MSRDC) was held not to be dominant in the relevant market after assessment of market share and project data, and therefore no abuse of dominance under the Competition Act was found; IRC accreditation as an eligibility criterion did not amount to unfair discrimination. No cartelisation or agreement restricting supply was established, no prima facie case required DG investigation, and the appeal was dismissed.
Relevant product market was identified as use of Crystalline Durability Admixture in heavy infrastructure projects and geographic market as India; the Maharashtra-only market pleaded by the appellant was rejected for lack of basis. The respondent authority (MSRDC) was held not to be dominant in the relevant market after assessment of market share and project data, and therefore no abuse of dominance under the Competition Act was found; IRC accreditation as an eligibility criterion did not amount to unfair discrimination. No cartelisation or agreement restricting supply was established, no prima facie case required DG investigation, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.