Sh. Pushpak Chauhan Vs Harish Bakers & Confectioners Pvt. Ltd. (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 W.e.f. […]
Director-General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Lite Bite Travel Foods Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The application had been filed under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules 2017, alleging profiteering in respect of restaurant service supplied by the Respondent (Franchisee of M/s. Subway Systems India Pvt Ltd.). In the application. it was alleged that despite the reduction […]
Sh. Varun Goel Vs Director General of Anti-Profiteering (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Penalty for not issuing an invoice or for issuing an incorrect or false invoice in respect of any supply of goods or services or both is not covered under Section 171(1) It is apparent from the perusal of Section 122 (1) (i) that the […]
D.S. Brothers Vs Durga Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) The brief facts of the case are that an application was filed by the Applicant No. 1 before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of the supply of “Duracell Battery AA/6” (hereinafter referred […]
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Gaurav Sharma Food Industries (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) 1. The present Report dated 31.12.2019 has been furnished by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that a reference was received […]
Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from the buyers of the flats of the above Project commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him has been detailed above.
Jai Prakash Garg Vs Adarsh thought Works Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Based on the above facts The amount of benefit of ITC which was required to be passed on by the Respondent or the profiteered amount is determined as Rs. 1,70,28,230/- including the GST @12% on the basic profiteered amount of Rs. 1,52.03,777/- as has been […]
DGAP investigated the issues of whether the GST rate applicable to the item Shoe Polish was reduced e.f. 15.11.2017 and if so, whether the benefit of such reduction in the rate of tax had been passed on by the Respondent No. 1 to his customers in terms of Section 171 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Sh. Shivam Agarwal Vs Gaursons Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Keeping in view the self-admission of the Respondent in which he has stated that he is liable to pass on the benefit of additional ITC as per the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act, the above projects are required to be investigated as there […]
Principal Commissioner Vs Prasad Media Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) NAA held that Prasad Media Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (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 […]
