https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396939 Interim relief in anti-profiteering litigation was considered on two fronts. Recovery of the balance profiteered amount was not stayed absolutely because the Court was concerned that withholding a determined refundable sum could prejudice flat buyers; instead, conditional protection was linked to proof that earlier benefits had been passed on and deposit of the balance within eight weeks. Proceedings for recovery of penalty were stayed, as the penalty provision was said to have been introduced later and similar matters had received interim protection elsewhere. The order therefore balanced equity between the petitioner and third-party beneficiaries while keeping the writ petition pending. en-us Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jul 2020 10:57:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396939 Interim relief in anti-profiteering litigation was considered on two fronts. Recovery of the balance profiteered amount was not stayed absolutely because the Court was concerned that withholding a determined refundable sum could prejudice flat buyers; instead, conditional protection was linked to proof that earlier benefits had been passed on and deposit of the balance within eight weeks. Proceedings for recovery of penalty were stayed, as the penalty provision was said to have been introduced later and similar matters had received interim protection elsewhere. The order therefore balanced equity between the petitioner and third-party beneficiaries while keeping the writ petition pending. Case-Laws GST Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396939