https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800266 Anti-profiteering re-investigation may validly follow a remand to apply a project-wide, per-square-foot apportionment of GST savings where an earlier methodology was legally unsustainable. The original reference remains operative, and the investigating authority is not functus officio where no final adjudicatory order followed the flawed report. Rule 129(6)'s reporting period is directory rather than mandatory, and delay arising from non-production of records does not bar re-investigation. Re-investigation does not breach natural justice where notice, access to the report, and opportunities for objections are provided. Section 171(1) requires suppliers to prove actual transmission of input tax credit benefits through commensurate price reduction; unpassed benefits attract interest, while no penalty applies for periods before the penalty provision took effect. en-us Wed, 30 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Oct 2026 09:32:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800266 Anti-profiteering re-investigation may validly follow a remand to apply a project-wide, per-square-foot apportionment of GST savings where an earlier methodology was legally unsustainable. The original reference remains operative, and the investigating authority is not functus officio where no final adjudicatory order followed the flawed report. Rule 129(6)'s reporting period is directory rather than mandatory, and delay arising from non-production of records does not bar re-investigation. Re-investigation does not breach natural justice where notice, access to the report, and opportunities for objections are provided. Section 171(1) requires suppliers to prove actual transmission of input tax credit benefits through commensurate price reduction; unpassed benefits attract interest, while no penalty applies for periods before the penalty provision took effect. Case-Laws GST Wed, 30 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800266