Deepak Naik Vs Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. (NAA) We find this to be a fit case where the Respondent’s claim of having passed on the benefit to his recipients/homebuyers requires to be verified against third party evidence in the form of written acknowledgements receipts from the homebuyers evidencing the receipt of the benefit, in...

DCIT Vs Dough Makers India Pvt. Ltd (NAA) It was alleged that Respondent No. 1 supplying restaurant service has increased the base prices of his products and has not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, affected vide Notification No. 46/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 by […]...

Hussain Shoaib Kothalia Vs Subwest Restaurant LLP  (NAA) The brief facts of the case are that an application was filed by the Applicant No. 1 with the Maharashtra State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering alleging profiteering in respect of restaurant service supplied by the Respondent despite the reduction in the rate of GST from 1...

Potnoor Naveen Vs Caroa Properties LLP (NAA) NAA held that Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, the...

Crown Express Dental Lab Vs Theco India Private Limited (NAA) From the perusal of Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017, it is clear that the violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) is not covered under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 as it does not provide penalty […]...

Mohit Arora Vs Lodha Developers Ltd (NAA) Since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, the notice dated 18.1...

Shri. I.P Saji Vs Inox Leisure Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) The brief facts of the case are that a reference was received from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering from Applicant No. 1, alleging profiteering in respect of the supply of restaurant service despite a reduction in the rate of GST from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017. […]...

Shri Surya Prakash Loonkar Vs M/s Excel Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) From the perusal of Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017, it is clear that the violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) is not covered under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 as it does not provide […]...

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Raj & Company (NAA) Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171 (3A). Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period ...

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Raj & Company (NAA) 1. The brief facts of the present case are that the DGAP vide his Report dated 08.08.2018, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation and found that […...