Sh. Gajender Singh Vs Haamid Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) It has been revealed from the DGAP’s Report that the ITC as a percentage of the turnover that was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period (April 2016 to June 2017) was 3.31% and during the post-GST period (July 2017 to April-2020), it was […]
Rahul Sharma Vs Portronics Digital Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Central Government, on recommendation of GST Council vide Notification No. 24/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2018 had reduced the GST rate on Power Bank from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019. Therefore, the Respondent is liable to pass on the benefit of the above tax rate reduction to his […]
Kishore Arjandas Udasi Vs Wheelabrator Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Authority finds that, the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 0.46% of the turnover during the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondent as […]
Smt. Sunita Malhotra & Sh. Vijay Malhotra Vs Godrej Project Development Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) The instant Report dated 26.08.2020, received on 31.08.2020 has been furnished by the Applicant No. 2 i.e. Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) under Rule 129(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 pursuant to the Interim Order No. […]
Raju Mittal Vs Shriram Properties Pvt. Ltd (NAA) The Applicant No. 1 alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the Unit No. 03-401 purchased from the Respondent in the project Shriram Summit, situated at Golahalli Electronic […]
Rahul Gautam Vs Himalya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) The Authority finds that, the DGAP has given a categorical report based on its verification that, the benefit of ITC has been passed on by the Respondent to all 189 homebuyers/customers who have booked their units on or after 1.07.2017 by way of giving deduction in […]
Pramod Agarwal Vs Arihant Superstructures Limited (NAA) The Authority finds that the Applicant no. 1 is an interested party and has complained regarding non passing on of benefit of ITC in relation to a specific Unit i.e. Flat no. 4-301 in Tower Benicia. This Authority holds that, the said Applicant no. 1 has locus standi […]
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs NY Cinema LLP (NAA) The main issues to be examined was whether the GST rate on Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films where price of admission ticket was above one hundred rupees were reduced from 28% to 18% and “Services by way of admission to exhibition […]
The Respondent has not disputed the findings of the DGAP regarding method of computation of profiteering and the amount worked out by him. As such, the Authority finds no reason to differ from the above-detailed computation of profiteering in the DGAP Report or the methodology adopted and hence, the Authority determines the profiteered amount for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018, in the instant case, as Rs. 1,42,45,741/-, for the project Sports Ville.
The present report dated 264)2.2021 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed Investigation under Rule 129(6) of the CGST Rules. 2017 The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules. 2017 and alleged that the Respondent.
