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 […]
Paramjeet Rathee Vs Supertech Limited (NAA) The Applicant No. 1 has further contended that while calculating profiteering, the DGAP has not considered the type of sale consideration i.e. Subvention Plan or CLP Plan, pre-GST impact of ITC on cost, Cost Sheet Proforma for Goods/Services pre-GST and post-GST, Summary of purchased materials/imputs versus Construction Stages and […]
Rahul Sharma Vs J. K. Helene Curtis Ltd. (NAA) Facts 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 a detailed investigation as per Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules on the allegation that M/s Raymond […]
Samit Chakraborty Vs Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Facts 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. […]
Manish Saini Vs Ramaprastha Promoter & Developer Pvt. Ltd. (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 pertaining to the passing on the benefit of the […]
In the present case, we observe that the allegation of the Applicant No. 1 is that the Respondent had maintained the same selling price in respect of supplies of the said Power Bank before and after coming into force of Notification No. 24/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2018 and he had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate to the Applicant No. 1 and other recipients.
Smt. Shubhra Vipin Gajbhiye Vs Pyramid Arcades Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is established from the perusal of the above facts that the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 4.52% of the turnover during the period from July, 2017 to December, 2018 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of […]
