<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (3) TMI 1437 - GSTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788682</link>
    <description>GST rate reduction on cinema tickets triggered a duty under Section 171 of the CGST Act to pass on the benefit through a commensurate price reduction; the text states that increasing base ticket prices instead amounted to anti-profiteering, and State cinema price ceilings or alleged permissions did not override that central obligation absent cogent proof of genuine cost escalation. It also states that the Rs. 3 per ticket maintenance charge formed part of the taxable value for computing the benefit to be passed on. The quantified profiteered amount was directed to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Funds because recipients were unidentifiable, while no penalty was imposed since the penal provision was stated to apply only prospectively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 17:11:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893020" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1437 - GSTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788682</link>
      <description>GST rate reduction on cinema tickets triggered a duty under Section 171 of the CGST Act to pass on the benefit through a commensurate price reduction; the text states that increasing base ticket prices instead amounted to anti-profiteering, and State cinema price ceilings or alleged permissions did not override that central obligation absent cogent proof of genuine cost escalation. It also states that the Rs. 3 per ticket maintenance charge formed part of the taxable value for computing the benefit to be passed on. The quantified profiteered amount was directed to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Funds because recipients were unidentifiable, while no penalty was imposed since the penal provision was stated to apply only prospectively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>