Respondent could not establish profiteering for want of cogent and reliable evidence and hence no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 has been found in this case....

Sh. Raman Khaira Vs M/s. Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have carefully considered the Report filed by the Applicant No. 2 as well as the submissions made by the Respondent No. 1 and it is obvious from the narration of the facts stated above that the investigation conducted in the matter […...

Shri Ankur Jain Vs M/s. Kunj Lub Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Respondent has contended that he had passed on the benefit in respect of the product by way of reducing the MRP of the 70 Gms. products. The Respondent has no such liberty to arbitrarily decide in respect of which products he would […]...

Sh. Jijrushu N. Bhattacharya Vs. M/s NP Foods (National Anti -Profiteering Authority) It is apparent from the record that the GST on restaurant service has been reduced by the Central Government vide Notification No. 46/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 from 18% to 5% and ITC has been disallowed. It is also revealed that the Applic...

Miss Neeru Varshney, Vs M/S Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) 1. This report dated 02.04.2018 has been received from the Applicant 2 i.e. Director General of Safeguards (DGSG), now re-designated as Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax...

Shri Sukhbir Rohilla & 108 Ors Vs M/s Pyramid Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent shall reduce the price to be realized from the buyers of the flats in commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him as has […]...

Shri Pawan Sharma Vs M/S Sharma Trading Company (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have also carefully considered the issue of imposition of penalty on the Respondent as the allegation of profiteering has been duly established against him. It is clear from the facts of the present case that the Respondent was fully aware of the Not...

E commerce operator is only acting as an agent and not covered by the anti-profiteering clause. However, it has observed the excess tax collected from customers were not refunded when rate of change took place for some of the products on 15th Nov 2017 in GST ...

The present report dated 16.04.2018, has been received from the Director General of Safeguards (DGSG) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 20.09.2017 was filed by above applicant before the Standing Committee, const...

it is revealed that the ndia Gate Basmati Rice sold by the Respondent was not liable for tax before the implementation of the GST and after coming into force of the CGST Act, 2017 it was levied GST @ 5% w.e.f. 22.09.2017....