Parveen Kumar Bansal Vs Sternal Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) We have carefully considered the Report furnished by the DGAP, the submissions made by the Respondent and the other material placed on record. On examining the various submissions, the observations of this Authority are as follows:- a) The DGAP, in Para 16 of his report, has […]
Prabhat Kumar Vs Mascot Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) NAA held that apparent anomalies in the Reports of the DGAP need to be appropriately addressed by way of revisiting the investigation in the interest of justice. Since there are differences in the figures considered for computation of the profiteering amount, thorough verification of the figures is […]
National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) directed the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to investigate the profiteering charges against 14 projects of BPTP Ltd and furnish his Report under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The investigation should be carried out w.e.f. July 1, 2017 to November 31, 2020 or till the date OC had been received by BPTP in respect of the Project.
Application filed by Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of the supply of Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films where the price of admission ticket is above one hundred rupees despite a reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019.
M. Srinivas Vs Electronics Mart India Ltd. (NAA) The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 29.03.2019 was filed by the Applicant No. 1, under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 before the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of supply of Monitors and TVs […]
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Procter & Gamble Home Products (PGHP) Private Limited (NAA) The brief facts of the case were that the Applicant had alleged that the Respondents had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to the recipients by way of commensurate […]
Director-General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Dange Enterprises (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We observe that as an investigating agency, the DGAP has been conferred with wide-ranging powers under Rules 129 and 132 of the CGST Rules read with Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 to summon any relevant record which may be required for conducting an investigation […]
Saurabh Kumar Vs Pareena Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) 1. The present Report dated 25.03.2020 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 Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that vide […]
Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti Profiteering Vs TTK Prestige Ltd. (NAA) Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.11.2017 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 […]
Kumudchandra Atmaram Patel Vs TTK Prestige Ltd. (NAA) vide 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 w.e.f. […]
