The Respondent has also claimed that the pricing of products depended on a number of commercial factors. In this connection it would be pertinent to mention that the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act required the Respondent to pass on the benefit of tax reduction to the consumers only and have no mandate to look in to fixing ...

Applicant had alleged that theMcNROE Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd had not pass on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% on supply of Deodorant Wild Stone Deo Chrome BX 120 ml'....

It was alleged that NY Cinemas had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rates on Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films where price of admission ticket was above one hundred rupees from 28% to 18% ...

Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Vs Le Reve Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The Respondent has also contended that right to trade was a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the right to trade including the right to determine prices and such right which had been granted by th...

Rahul Sharma Vs Bajaj Electricals Limited (NAA) In the present case, we observe that the allegation of Applicant No. 1 is that the Respondent had increased the MRP of the said product from Rs. 1099/- to Rs. 1405/- or Rs. 1520/- in respect of supplies of the said product and after coming into force of […]...

It is established from the perusal of the above facts that the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 4.04% of the turnover during the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondent as he has not passed on the above benef...

It is found that Respondent had increased the base prices of `Sujata Mixer Grinder 900W' when the rate of GST was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 27.07.2018, so that the commensurate benefit of GST rate reduction was not passed on to his recipients....

Respondent has not availed benefit of ITC after coming in to force of the GST and he has charged GST @18% which was required to be charged as per the Notification dated 01.07.2017....

Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from the customers/buyers commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him as has been detailed above. The above amount of Rs. 35,98,596/- which includes 18% GST on the base profiteered amount of Rs. 30,49,658/- has been profiteered by the Respondent from the Applicant No. 1 and the ot...

Rahul Sharma Vs Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The Respondent has also claimed that the anti-profiteering provisions were in the nature of restricting the right to carry on trade freely in terms of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and earn reasonable profit. In this connection it w...