Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Vs Le Reve Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The Respondent has also contended that right to trade was a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the right to trade including the right to determine prices and such right which had been granted by the […]
Applicant had alleged that theMcNROE Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd had not pass on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% on supply of Deodorant Wild Stone Deo Chrome BX 120 ml’.
It is established from the perusal of the above facts that the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 4.04% of the turnover during the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondent as he has not passed on the above benefit to his customers by commensurate reduction in the prices of the flats.
Rahul Sharma Vs Bajaj Electricals Limited (NAA) In the present case, we observe that the allegation of Applicant No. 1 is that the Respondent had increased the MRP of the said product from Rs. 1099/- to Rs. 1405/- or Rs. 1520/- in respect of supplies of the said product and after coming into force of […]
It is found that Respondent had increased the base prices of `Sujata Mixer Grinder 900W’ when the rate of GST was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 27.07.2018, so that the commensurate benefit of GST rate reduction was not passed on to his recipients.
Respondent has not availed benefit of ITC after coming in to force of the GST and he has charged GST @18% which was required to be charged as per the Notification dated 01.07.2017.
Shri Rahul Sharma Vs Portonics Digital Pvt Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 26.02.2019 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1 which alleged that the Respondent had profiteered […]
Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Vs Dough Makers India Pvt Ltd. (NAA) Fact of the Case: The brief facts of the present case are that a reference was received from the Standing Committee on Anti Profiteering on 27.03.2019 by the DGAP, to conduct a detailed investigation in respect of an application (originally examined by the […]
Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from the customers/buyers commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him as has been detailed above. The above amount of Rs. 35,98,596/- which includes 18% GST on the base profiteered amount of Rs. 30,49,658/- has been profiteered by the Respondent from the Applicant No. 1 and the other recipients/buyers which is required to be refunded to the Applicant No. 1 and the other recipients/buyers as per the Annexure-12 of the DGAP’s Report dated 30.08.2019 alongwith interest @18% f
Rahul Sharma Vs Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The Respondent has also claimed that the anti-profiteering provisions were in the nature of restricting the right to carry on trade freely in terms of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and earn reasonable profit. In this connection it would be pertinent […]
