https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776935 GSTAT (AT) held that a reduction in GST rate for restaurant services must be passed to consumers unless convincingly rebutted; the respondent failed to produce any evidence of increased base prices and thus did not pass on the 7.56% tax reduction. The Tribunal affirmed DGAP's authority to examine all products supplied by the registered person. The respondent was found to have violated s.171(1) and s.171(3A) of the CGST Act, but the penalty under s.171(3A) could not be imposed retrospectively because that provision took effect on 01.01.2020, while the violation period was 01.07.2017-31.03.2019. en-us Tue, 05 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jun 2026 16:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776935 GSTAT (AT) held that a reduction in GST rate for restaurant services must be passed to consumers unless convincingly rebutted; the respondent failed to produce any evidence of increased base prices and thus did not pass on the 7.56% tax reduction. The Tribunal affirmed DGAP's authority to examine all products supplied by the registered person. The respondent was found to have violated s.171(1) and s.171(3A) of the CGST Act, but the penalty under s.171(3A) could not be imposed retrospectively because that provision took effect on 01.01.2020, while the violation period was 01.07.2017-31.03.2019. Case-Laws GST Tue, 05 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776935