GSTAT upheld a profiteered amount of ₹4,57,683 but ruled that interest and penalty do not apply as the relevant CGST Rule amendments are prospective.
The tribunal closed the anti-profiteering case as the supplier could not be located, preventing the DGAP from verifying whether GST benefits were passed on. The ruling emphasizes the need for traceable business records.
GSTAT upheld DGAP’s findings that residual ITC benefit of ₹3.55 lakh was passed on by contractor to IOCL, closing anti-profiteering proceedings under Section 171.
GSTAT holds no profiteering under Section 171 CGST Act in IREO’s Skyon, Ireo City Central, and Managed Service Apartment projects as post-GST ITC benefit did not increase.
GSTAT ruled that no additional input tax credit benefit accrued to developer after GST implementation, leading to closure of anti-profiteering proceedings under Section 171 of CGST Act.
GSTAT accepted DGAP’s repeated findings that the company did not contravene Section 171 of the CGST Act, confirming that GST rate reductions were passed on to recipients as required.
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) accepted the DGAP’s final report, concluding that IREO Victory Valley Pvt. Ltd. did not contravene anti-profiteering provisions under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the project received no additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit post-GST.
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) rules on a GST anti-profiteering case, reducing the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering’s (DGAP) profiteering claim of ₹1.49 crore against Theco India Pvt. Ltd. This case examines the obligation to pass on Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits to consumers under Section 171 of the CGST Act.
GSTAT rules Mallikarjuna Cinema Hall profiteered by Rs. 16.5 lakhs by failing to pass GST rate reductions on cinema tickets to consumers between Jan-June 2019. Tribunal rejects arguments on state regulations and market dynamics.
GSTAT rules on P&G’s anti-profiteering case, deciding the company is not required to pay interest on a profiteered amount of ₹6.88 lakhs. The interest clause was deemed prospective, not retrospective.
