Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Profiteering under the GST regime was found where the Respondent accepted the DGAP-calculated excess and complainants withdrew complaints; the Tribunal directs the Respondent to pass on the profiteered amount of Rs.98,72,474 to homebuyers and to pay applicable interest under Rule 133(3)(b) of the CGST Rules, 2017, with compliance reporting to the jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner and DGAP within prescribed timelines. The Tribunal also holds that penalty under the post 2020 penalty provision applies because the contravention period spans 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2024, making penalty leviable under the applicable statutory provision for profiteering.
Profiteering under the GST regime was found where the Respondent accepted the DGAP-calculated excess and complainants withdrew complaints; the Tribunal directs the Respondent to pass on the profiteered amount of Rs.98,72,474 to homebuyers and to pay applicable interest under Rule 133(3)(b) of the CGST Rules, 2017, with compliance reporting to the jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner and DGAP within prescribed timelines. The Tribunal also holds that penalty under the post 2020 penalty provision applies because the contravention period spans 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2024, making penalty leviable under the applicable statutory provision for profiteering.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
