Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
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 4809 
Join Channel 
