Samit Chakraborty Vs Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Fact of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering vide its communication dated 11.03.2019 had requested the DGAP to conduct detailed investigation as per Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules on the allegation made by the Applicant No. […]
Sh. Apoorve Talera Vs Litecon Industries Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) It is established that the Respondent has acted in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and has not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to his recipients by commensurate reduction in the prices. Accordingly, the […]
Sh. Rahul Sharma Vs Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The Respondent has further contended that there was no stipulation in Section 171 which required that the benefit of rate reduction should be passed on to the customers by ‘commensurate reduction’ only in cash and methods like increase in the quantity of goods […]
Smt. Naina Rani Vs Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Fact of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that vide her application dated 30.11.2018 filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applicant No. 1 had alleged profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase […]
Arbind Biswal Vs Sahej Realcon Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Fact of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that vide his application dated 07.01.2019 filed on the Complaint Portal of this Authority which was forwarded to the Odisha State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering on 05.02.2019, under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the […]
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Vs N. Rai Delights LLP (NAA) It is clear from the plain reading of Section 171(1) mentioned above that it deals with two situations one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second about the passing on the benefit of the […]
State of Officer Vs Cilantro Diners Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) The Respondent has further contended that the DGAP, while calculating the profiteered amount, had not considered the prices of products which had been reduced by him and that the DGAP has considered such impact as zero, ignoring the negative values. In this regard, we observe that […]
State of officer Vs Bonne Sante (NAA) The Respondent has further contended that the DGAP, while calculating the profiteered amount, was wrongly added a 5% notional amount without explaining any reasons and hence, the profiteered amount be reduced appropriately. This contention of the Respondent is not correct because the provisions of Section 171 (1) and […]
The Respondent has also claimed that the pricing of products depended on a number of commercial factors. In this connection it would be pertinent to mention that the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act required the Respondent to pass on the benefit of tax reduction to the consumers only and have no mandate to look in to fixing of prices of the products which the Respondent was free to fix.
It was alleged that NY Cinemas had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rates on Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films where price of admission ticket was above one hundred rupees from 28% to 18%
