|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 844 Records
-
2020 (7) TMI 565
Addition on account of deduction of interest expenditure u/s 24 (b) - whether interest was paid on loan which was meant for investment in shares and bonds and not for the purpose of purchasing the property - grievance of the assessing officer is that that above interest expenditure cannot be granted as deduction from income from house property - HELD THAT:- In the previous year has reached at a finding that until the amount has been utilized in the investment of bonds et cetera, no interest can be claimed by the assessee as deduction under the income from house property. However when such bonds have been redeemed and utilized for the purpose of purchase of the property, then the borrowed fund from HSBC bank amounts to utilization of same for the purpose of purchase of the property. As held that since the amount was purchased from the borrowed funds of the HSBC bank, interest paid by the assessee should be allowed as a deduction. The above facts are not disputed by the revenue. Even it was not shown to us that the order of the learned CIT – A for assessment year 2011 – 12 has not been accepted by the revenue and is agitated before the higher forum. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A in directing the learned assessing officer to ascertain the interest on funds utilized for acquisition of the property on which rental income has been earned by it during the year and to grant deduction of such interest under section 24 (b) - Decided against revenue.
Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - CIT- A directed the learned AO to restrict the disallowance to the extent of the exempt income earned - HELD THAT:- CIT-A's direction are in view of the decision of JOINT INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS CIT [2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Also further directed AO to recompute the disallowance to exclude the interest expenditure, which pertains to the income from house property and in respect of the interest expenditure related to the income from other sources - Consider the remaining interest expenditure for the purpose of computation of the disallowance. With respect to the disallowance of 0.5% of the average value of the investment, he directed the learned assessing officer to consider only those bonds, which yielded tax-free income. After hearing the parties on this issues, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A in directing the AO so.
As CIT – A has followed the order of his predecessor and honourable Delhi High Court. The revenue has not challenged the order of the learned CIT – A for assessment year 2011 – 12, at least as no evidences produced before us. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A. Accordingly ground number two and three of the appeal of the AO is dismissed.
Addition on account of various business expenses claimed - HELD THAT:- On careful analysis of the order of the learned CIT – A, we found that he relied on the order of his predecessor for assessment year 2011 – 12 wherein all the facets of the allowability of those expenditure have been considered and disallowance has been deleted. We also do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A in following the order of his predecessor, when revenue could not produce any evidence before us that the order of the CIT – A for assessment year 2011 – 12 has not been accepted by the revenue. - Decided against revenue.
-
2020 (7) TMI 564
Detention order - Smuggling - carrying dutiable or prohibited goods - Gold - currency - Baggage Rules - COFEPOSA Act - HELD THAT:- The subjective satisfaction requisite on the part of the Detaining Authority, the formation of which is a condition precedent to the passing of the Detention Order, gets vitiated only if material or vital documents, which could have a bearing on the issue and would influence the mind of the Detaining Authority, one way or the other, are not placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority.
The assertion of the Detenue that, the said ‘Summons’ were not relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority or placed before the Detaining Authority does not vitiate the ‘subjective satisfaction’ recorded by the Detaining Authority, since the same was not relevant for the formation of the ‘subjective satisfaction’ of the Detaining Authority. Further, the Detenue’s assertion that he was not even supplied with a copy of the said ‘Summons’ is factually incorrect and does not further his case.
Coming to the submission qua the ‘Non-Recovery Panchnama’, the Sponsoring Authority did not rely upon that document, since the search proceedings did not result in the recovery of any incriminating documents, other than some personal documents of the Detenue, such as PAN Card, Aadhaar Card and Driving License. Therefore, the Panchnama, cannot be said to be material, the non- placement of which would render the Detention Order illegal.
In the present case, it is observed that huge volumes of gold had been smuggled into the country, illegally and unabatedly for the last five years and that about 8350 grams of gold has been brought into India during the period from November 2018 to May 2019 by the Detenue camouflaging the same as accessories of garments and buckle rings of bags. It is further observed that the Detaining Authority was justifiably satisfied, founded on the relevant material placed before it by the Sponsoring Authority, that the Detenue demonstrably has the propensity to indulge in the same acts of smuggling, if not prevented by way of the Detention Order from so doing - It is trite to state that the order of preventive detention is a preventive measure and that predicated on the admissible voluntary statements of the Detenue, which clearly bring out the role of the Detenue in the smuggling of Gold, as well as, other materials placed before the Detaining Authority, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, recorded in the Detention Order qua the continued propensity and inclination of the Detenue to continue to indulge into acts of smuggling in a planned manner, to the detriment of the economic security of the country, cannot be faulted and does not warrant interference of this Court in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction.
The present writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 563
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - representation of appeal after a delay of five years - no satisfactory cause shown for the delay - HELD THAT:- The appeal itself was presented with a delay of 35 days initially and then after the defects were pointed out, the appeal was re-presented after almost five years. This delay goes unexplained and there is no satisfactory cause shown for having re-presented the appeal after a delay of five years. In the absence of any such plausible explanation for the delay, we do not find any justification to condone the delay - COD application dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 562
Refund of SAD - HELD THAT:- Based on the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, through his written instructions dated 12.02.2018, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has opined that since the aforesaid order of the CESTAT, dated 12.06.2017 has been accepted by the Committee of Commissioner and they have also sanctioned and disposed of all pending re-fund claims based on the special order and that, similar orders could be passed in the present writ petitions also.
In view of the in-principle decision taken by the respondents to re-fund the Special Additional Duty - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 561
Maintenance of status quo about fixed assets and shareholding pattern of the Company - principal of lis pendence - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that NCLT has rejected the prayer of R-1 for impleading subsequent purchaser as party to the proceedings. However, directed that the subsequent purchaser’s right will be governed by Principal of lis pendence and the issue is kept open. It means such order is not final.
Impugned order upheld - appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 560
Rectification of the register of members of the respondent-company - Restraint on respondent-company from holding the annual general meeting or extra-ordinary general meeting - section 59(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The respondent-company in the instant application will fall under the category of "unpaid seller" who can exercise the above rights only. Nothing more - It is settled law as decided by the hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in TRIVENI SHANKAR SAXENA VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [1991 (12) TMI 285 - SUPREME COURT] that a lien is only a right to retain which is rightfully and continuously in possession belonging to another until the claims are satisfied. It can be acquired either by contract or by operation of law. It is the right of retention of goods.
In the absence of delineated process to exercise paramount lien, the respondent-company can exercise lien to the extent of retention of goods ; in this case shares which can be extendable payable to the shareholder - In the instant application, the respondent auctioned the shares without the consent of shareholders and without the original share certificate and transfer form in their possession. The earlier action appears to be illegal and not as per the Companies Act, 2013. As such the answer to the third point is also negative
The company has no right to auction and allot the shares to third parties ignoring the right of fully paid-up shareholders. The rental dues claimed by the respondent-company are not supported by a rental/ lease agreement which is agreed by the shareholder - the applicants are declared as the legitimate equity shareholders under Folio No. 50.
It is hereby directed that the rectification of the register of members of the respondent-company by re-entering the total number of 100 equity shares belonging to the late husband of the first applicant and late father of the second applicant and third applicant in the share register of the company and further ordering to restore the total shareholding of the applicants as it existed prior to February 8, 2019 forthwith.
-
2020 (7) TMI 559
Approval of scheme of Amalgamation - merger of business - no proceedings pending inquiry or investigation in respect of the applicant-company - HELD THAT:- While dispensing with the meetings, this Bench directs that notices be sent to the Central Government through the office of the Regional Director (Northern Region), the Income-tax Authorities, Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, official liquidator and other sectoral regulators or authorities as required under sub-section (5) of section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 who may have significant bearing on the operation of the applicant-companies along with copy of required documents and disclosures required under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 read with the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016. Copies of the notices along with the proof of dispatch be filed before this Bench along with the affidavit of compliance.
All the aforesaid directions are to be complied with strictly in accordance with the applicable law including forms and formats contained in the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 as well as the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 by the applicant.
Application allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 558
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The admitted document executed between the Parties, which is latest in terms of time is the Agreement dated 1st October, 2016 and considering the contents of the same, there are no reason to disagree with the Adjudicating Authority that after the earlier ‘MoU’s parties entered in to the execution of an arrangement as seen in the Builder Buyer Agreement dated 1st October, 2016.
No doubt, in the primary stage, after the ‘MoU’ dated 30th May, 2013 two Buyer/Seller Agreements dated 03.06.2013 were executed but then that arrangement appears to have been given up when Parties entered into further three fresh ‘MoU’s dated 01.06.2014, 01.06.2015 and 01.06.2016 referring to earlier Cheque of loan dated 01.06.2013. In these circumstances, where record shows the latest arrangement between the Parties of Builder Buyer Agreement dated 01.10.2016 and even possession has been offered on 7th March, 2018 (Page 290), which cannot be said to be beyond the period stipulated in the Agreement, there are no reason to admit the Application under Section 7 as was filed by the Appellant.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 557
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and default or not - Jurisdiction of Tribunal to entertain the appeal - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The last invoice was issued on January 11, 2011. Thereafter, on July 20, 2015 and August 3, 2016, the respondent had admitted the past dues, which were beyond the threshold of limitation. but stated that the respondent was making every effort to effect payment of the relevant amount. Subsequently, both parties had executed a memorandum of understanding on August 16, 2018, whereby the respondent had agreed to make payment within 6 months, i. e., by February 15, 2019. Thus, in view of the section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which overshadowed section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the matter is within the purview of the law of limitation under article 137 thereof.
It is evident from the ledger statement filed by the applicant/operational creditor annexed with the application, that the payment of claim amount of ₹ 1,20,78,456.34 has been defaulted by the respondent/corporate debtor and has been agreed as due and payable. The registered office of the corporate debtor is situated in Jaipur and therefore, this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this application - Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that it is a fit case to initiate the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against the respondent/corporate debtor as envisaged under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Application admitted - RP appointed - moratorium declared.
-
2020 (7) TMI 556
Grant of Regular bail - Money Laundering - siphoning of funds - the allegation is that the amount was given by RFL to entities which were, directly or indirectly, owned or controlled by the applicant, or in which the applicant otherwise had financial interest, including companies linked to RHC - HELD THAT:- Sanctity must attach to filing of a complaint pursuant to an ECIR. It must, as a matter of law, be taken to be the culmination of investigation into the offence to the extent the offence is defined in that complaint. No one is seeking to prevent or forestall further investigation but for the sake of on-going investigation, this court cannot warp the entire concept of pre-trial imprisonment and bail.
Nowhere is it the law that an accused, yet to be tried, is to be kept in custody only on a hunch or a presumption that he will prejudice or impede trial; or to send any message to the society. If anything, the only message that goes-out to the society by keeping an accused in prison before finding him guilty, is that our system works only on impressions and conjectures and can keep an accused in custody even on presumption of guilt. While in certain cases such message may even quench the thirst for revenge of the lay society against a person they believe to be guilty, such action would certainly not leave our criminal justice system awash in glory. An investigating agency must come to court with the confidence that they have arrested an accused, based on credible material, and have filed a complaint or a chargesheet with the certainty that they will be able to bring home guilt, by satisfying a court beyond reasonable doubt. But when an investigating agency suggests that an accused be detained in custody as an undertrial for a prolonged period, even after the complaint or chargesheet has been filed, it appears that the investigating agency is not convinced of its case and so it fears that the accused may ‘get-off’ by discharge or acquittal; and that therefore the only way to ‘punish the accused’ is to let him remain in custody as an undertrial.
People’s trust in the criminal justice system must rest on surer footing than on pre-trial punishment by keeping accused persons in prison. Statistics available on the Delhi Prisons website as on 31.12.2019 show that the proportion of undertrials to convicts in Delhi prisons is about 82 percent to 18 per cent. These numbers are telling. Prison is a place for punishment ; and no punishment can be legitimate without a trial. There must be compelling basis, grounds and reasons to detain an undertrial in judicial custody, which this court does not discern in the present case - It is beyond contention that the consequences of pre-trial detention are deleterious; and that keeping an undertrial in jail seriously jeopardises the preparation of his legal defence. If kept in custody, the applicant will not be able to effectively brief and consult with his lawyers, collate evidence in his defence and thereby defend himself effectively. Thereby the applicant will be denied his right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
There seems to be no rationale for continuing the applicant’s judicial custody as an undertrial in this case - this court is persuaded to the applicant to regular bail in the proceedings registered under sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Bail application allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 555
Utlization of CENVAT Credit - one-to-one co-relation between input services and output services required or not - period March 2009 to August 2009 - time bar - scope of SCN - HELD THAT:- The manufacturer of excisable goods can take credit of CENVAT paid on input services and there is no such requirement for one to one co-relation and there is no bar on the utilization of CENVAT credit availed on input services for payment of tax on excisable goods manufactured and cleared.
It has been held in numbers of cases that as far as the inputs or input services are availed on payment of duty and as long as they are capable of being used in the provision of service Tax and manufacture of excisable goods credit cannot be denied; there is no requirement of one to one correlation.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Timely scrutiny of Returns by the Department would have shown that there is huge accumulated credit; Department was free to further investigate the matter and issue timely SCN. In view of the same, the appellants have a strong case on limitation too and the SCN is barred by limitation.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (7) TMI 554
Nestle Milky bar and Eclairs - Benefit of exemption under N/N. 6 /2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 as amended with notifications 3/2006 dated 1/3/2006 and 12/2012 dated 17/3/2012 - classification of goods - Whether the confectionery products cleared by the appellant under Chapter 1704.90 are 'white chocolate' or not? - extended periof of limitation - interest and penalties - HELD THAT:- Both the Revenue as well as the appellant do not dispute the classification of the impugned products under CETH 1704. The only difference in the argument is based on the presence or absence of ingredients like cocoa butter and hydrogenated vegetable oils.
As per Tariff Entry 1704 refers to sugar confectionery (including white chocolate) not containing cocoa. Chapter 17 does not include sugar confectionery containing cocoa or chocolate (other than white chocolate) in any proportion and sweetened cocoa powder (heading 18.06). HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 170490 other says that the heading covers most of the sugar preparations which are marketed in a solid or semi-solid form, generally suitable for immediate consumption and collectively referred to as sweetmeats, confectionery or candies - thus, white chocolate can be classified under Chapter 17 and white chocolate composes sugar, cocoa butter, milk powder and flavoring agents, but not containing more than mere traces of cocoa.
Whether or not the impugned products merit classification as white chocolate in terms of the HSN Explanatory Notes? - HELD THAT:- Tribunal, Allahabad in the case of M/S MARKO FOODS & SHRI NAMAN MANDHYAN, PARTNER, M/S PAHLADRAI CONFECTIONARIES PVT. LTD. & SHRI MOHIT VAID DIRECTOR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR [2018 (9) TMI 14 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] held that a similar product i.e., Parle 2-in-1 Eclairs” and “Kismi Toffee and Bar”, to be boiled sweets containing no cocoa butter and having 8% fat content, are not “white chocolate” under Tariff Item 1704 90 30 of Central Excise Tariff and held that the said goods are eligible to benefit of Notification Nos.6/2002-CE, 3/2006-C.E. and 12/2012-C.E. - the Department has not conclusively established that the appellant’s claim that the impugned products did not contain cocoa butter during the impugned period with any indisputable proof or test report.
The impugned goods i.e. Nestle Milky bar and Nestle Milky bar Eclairs are not excluded for the purpose of exemption contained in the Notifications.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (7) TMI 553
Principles of natural justice - service of assessment order - contention of the petitioner is to the effect that no orders of assessment have been passed and hence the demands are non-est and invalid - HELD THAT:- Though the orders of assessment appear to have been dispatched, they have been returned and hence have not been served upon the assessee. Learned counsel for the petitioner confirms that copies of the orders of assessment have been received by him now and the same will be duly handed over to the petitioner as well.
In the light of the position that the orders of assessment giving rise to the impugned demands admittedly have not been served upon the petitioner, the impugned recovery notice has no legs to stand and is hence quashed. The interim stay of recovery granted on 15.07.2020 will continue for a period of four (4) weeks from today to enable the petitioner to take such action as it may be inclined as against the orders of assessment.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 552
Disbursement of Refund amount - assessment year 2008-2009 - HELD THAT:- In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the liability to make refund is admitted. Therefore, the reason now stated through the learned Special Government Pleader cannot be accepted. The respondents are directed to make the petition mentioned refund to the petitioner without any delay. Of course the respondents will also be liable to pay the said amount along with statutory interest. This amount shall be paid within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petiton allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 551
Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - periods 2011-12 and 2012-13 - allegation is that the impugned assessments are passed entirely upon the report of the officials of the Enforcement Wing and do not reflect any independent application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer - Circular No.3/2019 - HELD THAT:- Even in the case where there is an adverse report by the Enforcement Wing in regard to a particular issue, the Assessing Officer is at liberty and in fact ought to examine the issue independently. This has admittedly not been done in this case. Hence, the impugned orders are quashed and the Writ Petitions allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 550
Grant of Regular Bail - Fraud - siphoning of public money - disbursement of loans to shell entities - HELD THAT:- While a fraction of the money trail of ₹ 2000 crores has been recovered, the other fraction still remains untraced as yet and investigation regarding the same is ongoing, by the Economic Offences Wing as well as independently by SEBI. The SEBI itself is still investigating fraud of about ₹ 600 crores and has recorded the same in its order dated 14.03.2019. Moreover, the loans granted by the Petitioner to the following entities amounting to over ₹ 600 crores are still under investigation.
The petitioner being influential is capable of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses who were his subordinates. As apparent from the various documents and the bail applications themselves, there is no denial of the Complainant Company's funds by the accused persons having been siphoned away. In addition, there is a higher apprehension of the accused persons including petitioner herein absconding as they are aware that they are likely to be convicted. Further, the conduct of the Accused with respect to internal investigation being carried out by AZB & Partners is also relevant as the Accused refused to participate in the investigation - In addition, there are various complaints and FIR which have been filed by the Complainant Company and are pending investigation. The Accused has also been made a suspect in another case emanating from FIR No. 189/2019 dated September 23, 2019 which is pending at the stage of cognizance. It is pertinent to note that this is not an isolated instance and there are various other frauds committed by the accused persons. Agencies like SEBI, ED and SFIO are also investigating REL.
It is settled law that economic offences are considered to be grave offences especially when public money is involved and that the Courts have to be careful in granting bail in such cases.
In view of facts and law discussed and the fact that further investigation is at the crucial stage regarding fraud committed by accused for worth of ₹ 2,000/- crores plus of public money, there is apprehension that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence and influence the prosecution witnesses, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 549
Maintainability of petition - availability of efficacious alternative remedy of appeal - Refund of GST - rejection on the ground that it involves multiple tax periods - HELD THAT:- The present petition cannot be entertained when the petitioner has an equally alternate efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, GST - The present petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek its remedies against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority, along with an application for condonation of delay.
-
2020 (7) TMI 548
Filing of GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 returns - rejection on the ground of the petitioner failing to produce any material/evidence to show that he had tried to submit the TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 within the stipulated period, the petitioner faced technical glitch.
HELD THAT:- This court is of the opinion that the respondent State authorities on the matter being referred to it by the High Court in the earlier round of litigation in WPT No.68 of 2018 should have considered the contentions of the petitioner raised by him in the said writ petition wherein itself he had categorically submitted that he has faced certain technical glitches while submitting TRAN-1 forms and the report in this regard was lodged on 26.12.2017and he has lodged complaint in this regard to the authorities well before the last date - In addition, he has also manually submitted the same on 18.01.2018 and had also sent it by registered post on the same day - All these aspects have not been considered or decided by the Commissioner in his order dated 14.09.2018 in the absence of any reasons and discussion by the Commissioner to the contentions and submissions of the petitioner, this court is of the view that the said order dated 14.09.2018 needs to be reconsidered.
Matter remanded back to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax for a reconsideration and for passing of a fresh order - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (7) TMI 547
Transition of credit available under the VAT scheme to the GST portal - credit generated on the basis of incorrect ID, thereafter new registration granted - Section 139 of the PGST Act - HELD THAT:- The appropriate authority is directed to issue the necessary positive recommendations for migration/transition of credit available in the account of the R2 within a period of four (4) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order and R2 will, in turn and within four weeks from receipt thereof, issue necessary intimation to the petitioner permitting it to access the portal and upload the forms.
Permission to deposit tax, penalty and interest u/s 50 of the PGST Act - HELD THAT:- Such a prayer is premature, since no assessment has been made in the present case. The petitioner may canvass the same, if so inclined, at the time of assessment and such prayer, if and when put forth, shall be considered by the Authorities in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 546
Profiteering - restaurant service supplied by the Respondent (Franchisee of M/s Subway Systems India Pvt Ltd.) - allegation that the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST not passed on by way of commensurate reduction of price - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- The profiteered amount is determined as ₹ 7,53,8541- as has been computed vide Annexure-13 of the DGAP’s Report dated 31.12.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately in terms of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the above Rules. Further, since the recipients of the benefit, as determined above are not identifiable, the Respondent is directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 7,53,854/- in two equal parts of ₹ 3,76,927/- each in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the Rajasthan State Consumer Welfare Fund as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c) of the CGST Rules 2017, along with interest payable @ 18% to be calculated from the dates on which the above amount was realized by the Respondent from his recipients till the date of its deposit. The above amount of ₹ 7,53,854/- shall be deposited, as specified above, within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order failing which it shall be recovered by the concerned CGST/SGST Commissioner.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has denied the benefit of tax reduction to the customers in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and he has thus resorted to profiteering. Hence, he has committed an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable to penal action under the provisions of the above Section - Accordingly, a notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
............
|
9911796707
