The case addressed increased ITC benefits post-GST without corresponding price reduction. The tribunal ruled this violated Section 171, mandating refund, interest at 18%, and potential penalty.
The dispute concerned failure to reduce prices after GST. The Tribunal held that documentary evidence showed benefit was already transferred to buyers.
GSTAT held that no anti-profiteering violation arises where construction, agreement, and payments occur entirely in the GST regime. Since prices already factored ITC, no benefit was required to be passed on.
The issue involved a calculation error in the final order. The Tribunal clarified the correct per sq. ft. benefit including GST and directed proper computation.
The court held that the seized quantity was intermediate, making strict bail conditions under Section 37 inapplicable. It granted bail considering custody period and case facts. The ruling clarifies bail eligibility in such cases.
The Tribunal held that compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme qualifies as retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B). It ruled that the entire amount is a capital receipt and fully exempt from tax.
The tribunal held that insufficient stamping of a loan agreement does not invalidate insolvency proceedings. Default was established through other documentary evidence. The ruling emphasizes substance over technical defects.
The court held that delay in filing returns can bar deduction under Section 80P. It directed the taxpayer to seek condonation under Section 119(2)(b). The ruling emphasizes compliance with statutory timelines.
The tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed where there is no intentional misdeclaration. The presence of seeds was detected only after testing. The ruling highlights the importance of proving mens rea for penalties.
The court held that rejecting an appeal solely due to non-appearance is improper. Authorities must consider written submissions and pass a reasoned order. The ruling reinforces fair adjudication principles.
