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...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6361 to 6380 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Once GST was reduced, the seller remained under a statutory duty to pass on the benefit through commensurate price reduction, and regulated cinema ticket pricing did not displace scrutiny under anti-profiteering law. The Tribunal rejected reliance on Telangana cinema licensing orders and found no equitable relief because material facts had not been fully disclosed and the earlier High Court conditions were not shown to have been satisfied. It accepted the DGAP methodology, held that the base price should have been maintained after the tax cut, and found profiteering established. Interest was made recoverable only prospectively from 28.06.2019, while penalty was held inapplicable because the penalty provision came into force later.
Once GST was reduced, the seller remained under a statutory duty to pass on the benefit through commensurate price reduction, and regulated cinema ticket pricing did not displace scrutiny under anti-profiteering law. The Tribunal rejected reliance on Telangana cinema licensing orders and found no equitable relief because material facts had not been fully disclosed and the earlier High Court conditions were not shown to have been satisfied. It accepted the DGAP methodology, held that the base price should have been maintained after the tax cut, and found profiteering established. Interest was made recoverable only prospectively from 28.06.2019, while penalty was held inapplicable because the penalty provision came into force later.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
