Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Nestle India Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) 1. The present Report dated 08.10.2018 and the supplementary Reports dated 16.01.2019, 01.02.2019, 15.03.2019, 08.05.2019 and 12.06.2019 have been received from the above Applicant (here-inafter referred to as the DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services […]
Sh. Santha Sivaram Vs Virgo Properties Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have carefully considered all the submissions filed by the Applicant No. 1, the Respondent and the other material placed on record and find that the Applicant No. 1, vide his complaint dated 05.04.2018 had alleged that the Respondent was not passing on the […]
Kerala State Screening Committee Vs IFB Industries Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The Respondent further objected that no methodology and procedure for determining the anti-profiteering amount had been prescribed by Legislature and the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST, Act and Rule 122 to 137, being part of a taxing Statute cannot be enforced in […]
Pawan Kumar Vs S3 Buildwell LLP (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 are aimed at ensuring that the recipients get the commensurate benefit, in the form of reduction in prices, in case of any tax rate reduction and/or incremental benefit of ITC which has become available to them due […]
The Respondent has computed the interim GST benefit by estimating taxes which were a cost to him in the pre-GST regime. We find that it is a methodology based on estimated or assumed figures which is not accurate and we agree with the methodology adopted by the DGAP while determining profiteering.
T. R. Ravichandran, RP Vs The Asst. Commissioner (ST) (NCLT) Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code having categorically mentioned that IBC will have over riding effect on all other laws which are in contravention to the provisions of the IBC, RI cannot raise an objection saying since no provision has been made in […]
Smt. Mamta Aggarwal Vs GLS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Authority determines the profiteered amount as Rs. 4,35,53,927/- (inclusive of applicable GST @ 12% or 8%) for the 1075 residential units for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 as per the details furnished by the DGAP vide Annexure-20 of his above Report. The above […]
No profiteering found in Sanjay Devan Vs Vatika Ltd. case. DGAP reports no ITC benefit or tax rate reduction. Section 171 not applicable.
Sh. Kavi Mahajan Vs M/s Heeranandani Realtors Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 10.66% of the turnover during the period from July, 2017 to August, 2918 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondent as […]
Sh. Rohit Singh Vs Friends Land Developers (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) During the pre-GST period the Respondent has availed CENVAT credit on the Service Tax during the pre-GST period from April. 2016 to June. 2017 amounting to Rs 52,11,867/-, collected an amount of Rs. 12,31,99.617/- from his customers as turnover, has sold an area of 1,35,655 […]
