Anti-profiteering rectification cannot reopen GST inclusion, while welfare fund deposits require statutory conditions and genuine refund efforts.
Case-Laws
GST
Rule 31 confines rectification of anti-profiteering orders to patent clerical, arithmetical or factual mistakes and does not permit review of debatable findings. A subsequent decision in separate proceedings cannot establish an omission of material available when the original order was passed. Under Rule 133(3)(c), deposit in a Consumer Welfare Fund requires the eligible recipient not to claim the amount or to be unidentifiable; missing bank details alone are insufficient. Reasonable efforts to facilitate direct refunds must be documented. Qualifying deposits require applicable interest and allocation between Central and State Funds, or to the Central Fund alone if the State Fund is non-functional. GST paid to the Government does not itself discharge the obligation to pass on input tax credit benefits to homebuyers.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n