The Court granted ad-interim relief, holding prima facie that no under-reporting arose where deduction was claimed based on a binding High Court judgment later overruled. Coercive recovery was stayed.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier did not file an income tax return. Verified GST filings and inventory records established transaction genuineness.
Applying GIR 1 and Rule 3(a), the Authority ruled that technical design and manufacturer categorisation govern classification. The tyres were found to possess TBR characteristics, not OTR features.
The Tribunal deleted the ₹60 lakh addition under Section 68 after noting that the loan was received and repaid through banking channels and the lenders identity was established.
The Tribunal held that immunity from penalty requires strict compliance with statutory conditions, and absence of proof of Form 68 filing disentitles relief.
The AAR held that Dry Citrate Powder used in haemodialysis is not an instrument or apparatus under Chapter 90. It was classified under HSN 29181590 as an organic chemical, attracting 18% GST.
The Gujarat AAR held that an IIM established by Parliament is a specified person under Section 51 due to substantial Central Government control. TDS must be deducted when contract value exceeds ₹2.5 lakh.
The Tribunal held that additional ITC benefits under GST were not passed on to homebuyers across three projects. The builder must refund ₹98.72 lakh with interest under Section 171 of the CGST Act.
GSTAT directed the DGAP to recompute the profiteered amount after noting that only the services component of the ₹89 crore pre-GST value was considered. A revised report under Rule 133(2A) must be filed within one month.
The Tribunal directed DGAP to re-examine calculation issues after the Respondent challenged the method of computing profiteering. Questions on service ITC deduction and price comparison require fresh scrutiny.
