Sh. Bhanja Kishore Pradhan Vs HCBS Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 filed application, dated 19.09.2018, before the National Anti-profiteering Authority under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The said application was forwarded by the […]
Ajay Kumar Vs Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (NAA) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that vide their applications dated 09.10.2018 and 16.12.2019 filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applicant No. 1 and 2 had alleged profiteering by the Respondent […]
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs ITC Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering vide its communication dated 14.09.2018 had requested the DGAP to conduct detailed investigation as per Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules on the allegation that the Respondent […]
Susheel Prasad Todi Vs Acme Housing India Pvt Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) In this case It is established that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the builder as he has profiteered an amount of Rs. 2,10,57,462/- which includes 12% GST on the base profiteered amount of Rs. […]
Rule 42 of the CGST Rules, 2017 lays down the mode of computation of mandatory reversal of the unutilized input tax credits in respect of unsold flats/shops of a real estate project at the time of receipt of completion Certificate (CC)/ occupancy certificate (OC) or on the date of first occupancy, whichever is earlier.
Kishore Arjandas Udasi Vs Wheelabrator Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that vide his application dated 09.08.2018 filed before the Maharashtra State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 (2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applicant No. 1 had alleged profiteering by the Respondent […]
Shri Dharmendra Gaud Vs JMK Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have carefully considered all the Reports filed by the DGAP, submissions of the Respondent and other material placed on record and it is revealed that the Respondent is executing his ”Grand IV A” project under the Affordable Housing Scheme approved by the Government […]
Sushil Kumar Jain Vs Sarvpriya Securities Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Based on the above facts it is clear that the ITC as a percentage of the turnover that was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period from April, 2016 to June, 2017 was 4.75% and during the post-GST period from July, 2017 to […]
Potnoor Naveen Vs Caroa Properties LLP (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is also evident from the perusal of the facts of the present case that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats and the shops being constructed by him in his Project ‘Godrej City Panvel Phase-I’ in contravention of the […]
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Johnson & Johnson Private Limited (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Profiteered amount is determined as Rs. 2,30,40,74,132/- as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the above Rules as has been computed vide Annexure-13 of the Report dated 24.06.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately in terms […]
