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 […]
Parvez Khan Vs Pearlite Real Properties Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the present case are that an application dated 15.10.2018 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1, alleging profiteering […]
Sumit Mansingka Vs E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Facts of the case: The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint dated 18.12.2017 was filed before the Uttar Pradesh State level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering by the Applicant No.1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of a flat in the Respondent’s […]
Rahul Gautam Vs Himalaya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application dated 16.10.2018 before the Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 (2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and submitted that […]
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that it was alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST on the Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs) being supplied by him, when […]
