Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Invoice-wise comparison found a rebuttable presumption of profiteering following a GST rate reduction on specified snack products; the DGAP report quantified profiteering at Rs. 90,90,310 for 15.11.2017-31.12.2018 and that amount must be deposited equally into the Consumer Welfare Fund. Interest was not imposed because the rule authorising 18% interest became effective on 28.06.2019 and fiscal additions are not to be applied retrospectively (per SC precedent), so no interest is directed. Penalty under the penal provision was not imposed because that provision came into force on 01.01.2020 and cannot be applied retroactively.
Invoice-wise comparison found a rebuttable presumption of profiteering following a GST rate reduction on specified snack products; the DGAP report quantified profiteering at Rs. 90,90,310 for 15.11.2017-31.12.2018 and that amount must be deposited equally into the Consumer Welfare Fund. Interest was not imposed because the rule authorising 18% interest became effective on 28.06.2019 and fiscal additions are not to be applied retrospectively (per SC precedent), so no interest is directed. Penalty under the penal provision was not imposed because that provision came into force on 01.01.2020 and cannot be applied retroactively.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
