9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ateek Chadha, Ms.Mansi Sood, Mr.Vrishank Singhania and Mr.Ruturaj Gurjar, Advocates. Mr.Vrishank Singhania, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey with Mr.Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Zoheb Hossain Advocate with Mr.Vipul Agrawal, Jr.Standing Counsel, Mr. Vivek Gurnani and Ms.Niharika Kuchhal, Advocate for respondents No.2. Mr. Anurag Ojha, Sr.Standing Counsel with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that vide the impugned order, respondent No.2 has erroneously determined that the petitioner has profiteered to the tune of Rs.2,66,99,340/- by not reducing the price of the goods or services supplied by it, in proportion to the tax rate reduction on account of introduction of the new GST rates. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner owns / runs multiplexes in vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es that the impugned order and notice fail to consider relevant materials and rely on irrelevant materials. He further states that the impugned order erroneously applies sub-rule (3) of Rule 133. He points out that the impugned notice has been issued after final impugned order by respondent No.2 and amounts to impermissibly extending the scope of enquiry. He further states that the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposit the principal profiteered amount i.e. Rs.2,66,99,340/- in six equated instalments commencing 1st December, 2022. The interest amount directed to be paid by the respondents as well as the penalty proceedings and further investigation by NAA in respect of cinema halls of petitioner for extended period of time as provided for in the impugned order are stayed till further orders. Learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
