Sanjay Devan Vs Vatika Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Appellate Authority) The only issue to be examined is as to whether there was any net benefit of ITC with the introduction of GST. On this issue, the DGAP in his Report, has stated that ITC as a percentage of the turnover which was available to the Respondent […]...

Sh. Kavi Mahajan Vs M/s Heeranandani Realtors Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 10.66% of the turnover during the period from July, 2017 to August, 2918 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondent as [&...

Sh. Rohit Singh Vs Friends Land Developers (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) During the pre-GST period the Respondent has availed CENVAT credit on the Service Tax during the pre-GST period from April. 2016 to June. 2017 amounting to Rs 52,11,867/-, collected an amount of Rs. 12,31,99.617/- from his customers as turnover, has sold an ...

It is clear from the plain reading of Section 171(1) mentioned above that it deals with two situations one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second pertaining to the passing on the benefit of the ITC....

It it is revealed that the Respondent is executing his Synera project under the Affordable Housing Scheme approved by the Government of Haryana under the Prime Minister Awas Yojana and is constructing both the residential and commercial accommodation....

It is also evident from above narration of facts that Respondent has denied benefit of rate reduction to buyers of product Sanitary Napkin in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus resorted to profiteering, which is an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017...

During the pre-GST period from April. 2016 to June, 2017 the Respondent was paying tax @ 6% which was increased to 18% during the post-GST period and hence there was increase in the rate of tax and therefore, the Respondent is not liable to pay the benefit of tax reduction to his customers...

NAA carefully considered the Report of the DGAP, submissions made by the Respondent and based on the record it is revealed that the above Applicants had purchased flats from the Respondent in his Green Court project situated in Sector 90, Gurugram, Haryana which was got approved by him under the Affordable Housing Policy-2013 of the Gover...

Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him in his 'Runwal My City' Project in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus profiteered an amount of Rs. 3,20,49,507/- from his customers, hence he has committed an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGS...

Shri Hardev Singh Vs M/s Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) As per the payment schedule, buyers had to pay 5% of the total amount at the time of booking, i.e. at the time of submission of the application for allotment and the first draw for allotment was held on 31.03.2017 during the […]...