Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
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...
In real estate anti-profiteering analysis, the governing approach is to test project-level GST savings by comparing credit availed to purchase value in the pre-GST and post-GST periods. Applying that method, the Tribunal accepted the DGAP's use of purchase-value ratios, excluded reversed credit and units outside the relevant pre-occupancy sale pool, and held that no additional benefit had accrued to the developer. It also accepted that ledger adjustments could evidence passing on of input tax credit, and that the EPC contractor was not the supplier to homebuyers. The objections to methodology, verification, and alleged inconsistency were rejected, and no contravention of Section 171 was found.
In real estate anti-profiteering analysis, the governing approach is to test project-level GST savings by comparing credit availed to purchase value in the pre-GST and post-GST periods. Applying that method, the Tribunal accepted the DGAP's use of purchase-value ratios, excluded reversed credit and units outside the relevant pre-occupancy sale pool, and held that no additional benefit had accrued to the developer. It also accepted that ledger adjustments could evidence passing on of input tax credit, and that the EPC contractor was not the supplier to homebuyers. The objections to methodology, verification, and alleged inconsistency were rejected, and no contravention of Section 171 was found.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.