Smt. Shubhra Vipin Gajbhiye Vs Pyramid Arcades Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is established from the perusal of the above facts that the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 4.52% of the turnover during the period from July, 2017 to December, 2018 and hence the provisions of Section 171 o...

Rule 42 of the CGST Rules, 2017 lays down the mode of computation of mandatory reversal of the unutilized input tax credits in respect of unsold flats/shops of a real estate project at the time of receipt of completion Certificate (CC)/ occupancy certificate (OC) or on the date of first occupancy, whichever is earlier....

Susheel Prasad Todi Vs Acme Housing India Pvt Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) In this case It is established that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the builder as he has profiteered an amount of Rs. 2,10,57,462/- which includes 12% GST on the base profiteered amount of Rs. […]...

Shri Dharmendra Gaud Vs JMK Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have carefully considered all the Reports filed by the DGAP, submissions of the Respondent and other material placed on record and it is revealed that the Respondent is executing his ”Grand IV A” project under the Affordable Housing Scheme...

Sushil Kumar Jain Vs Sarvpriya Securities Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Based on the above facts it is clear that the ITC as a percentage of the turnover that was available to the Respondent during the pre-­GST period from April, 2016 to June, 2017 was 4.75% and during the post-GST period from July, 2017 to […]...

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Johnson & Johnson Private Limited (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Profiteered amount is determined as Rs. 2,30,40,74,132/- as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the above Rules as has been computed vide Annexure-13 of the Report dated 24.06.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent is directe...

Potnoor Naveen Vs Caroa Properties LLP (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is also evident from the perusal of the facts of the present case that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats and the shops being constructed by him in his Project ‘Godrej City Panvel Phase-I’ in contravention of the [...

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Krishna Trading Company (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The Respondent has admitted in his submissions that he was aware of the above tax reductions and hence he should have immediately reduced his sale prices commensurate with the rate reductions. He also cannot claim that he has not reduce...

Amit Tandon Vs Adani M2k Project LLP (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) 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 […]...

We observe that the said provision clearly links profiteering to be a function of each supply of goods or services or both and hence, profiteering needs to be computed at the level of each invoice and not at the entity level or any consolidated level....