Sh. Priyanshu Pathak Vs Forever Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) The Authority finds that all the events i.e. the Licences, RERA Certificate, booking, the draw, allotment of flats, BBA, construction activity and receipt of payments has taken place in the post-GST era. It is also clear that the Applicant No. 1 was allotted flat only after [&helli...

Launching of the project, Agreement to sell and Completion Certificate of the project had taken place in the pre-GST regime and hence, there was no post-GST tax rate or ITC structure which could be compared with the pre-GST tax rate and ITC and also the anti-profiteering provisions related to Section 171 were not in existence at that time...

Principal Commissioner Vs Sri Laxmi Kala Mandir 70MM Theatre (NAA) It is clear from the investigation carried out by the DGAP and also letter dated 03.06.2019 to Deputy Commissioner (Anti Evasion), Medchal, Hyderabad that the Respondent has maintained the same prices of all three categories of movie admission tickets which he was charging...

Jigar R. Shah Vs Jay Ambe Developers (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is clear from the plain reading of Section 171(1) 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 the ITC. On […]...

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Nirma Limited (NAA) Brief facts of the case: The present Report dated 15.12.2021 has been received from the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that a refer...

In re Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Gopal Teknocon Private Limited (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The brief facts of the case are that an Application was filed by the Applicant No. 1 under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 before the State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering alleging profiteering by the Respondent, in respec...

NAA finds that DLF Limited has profiteered for the projects The Camellias, The Crest and The Ultima' re during the period of investigation i.e. 01.07.2017 to 30.11.2020. The above amount that has been profiteered by the Respondent from his home buyers in all the above three projects shall be refunded by him, along with interest @18% there...

Since the said Phase-I was not in existence in the GST period and the said Phase-III was yet to be started/registered as on 27.08.2020 hence, the Anti-Profiteering provisions under Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 are not applicable on the said Phase-I and Phase-III of River View Heights of the Respondent....

Vishal Garg Vs JMD Limited (NAA) It is also evident from the above narration of facts that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats and the shops being constructed by him in his Project JMD Imperial Suits/Suburbio-67 (Suburbio-1)in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST […]...

Kalyan Chakravarthy Vs Prathima Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) inds that the Respondent has resorted to profiteering by way of either increasing the base prices of the service while maintaining the same selling prices or by way of not reducing the selling prices of the service commensurately, despite a reduction in GST rate, on “Services...