Shri Deepak Kumar Khurana Vs M/s Sattva Developers Pvt Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The Respondent has himself admitted that there has been benefit of ITC derived and the benefit has been passed on by him to all his customers with whom agreements were entered on or before 30.06.2017. According to him the benefit has been […]
Shri Navneet Gupta Vs M/s Bharti Telemedia Pvt Ltd. (NAA) It was submitted that the tax incidence on DTH services prior to GST implementation was subjected to Entertainment Tax which ranged between 10% to 25% in various States, in addition to 15% Service Tax, whereas on introduction of GST, the tax rate came down to […]
Park view Ananda Resident Welfare Association Vs. M/s Bestech India Ltd (NAA) Complaint of the Applicant No. 1 was related to the pre-GST period and that the specific charges on the basis of which the said complaint arose pertained to VAT, EDC and IDC. Since the project has been completed before coming into force of […]
IDBI Bank Limited Vs Mr. Anuj Jain (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) As the voting is on, which is likely to be completed today by 5.00 p.m., we are not inclined to pass any specific order in the present I.A. No. 1857 of 2019 filed by the ‘IDBI Bank Limited’. After voting the decision if […]
Sh. Sahil Mehta Vs M/s Salarpuria Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Respondent has denied the benefit of the ITC to the buyer of the flats being constructed by him in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, where he had not only collected more price than the […]
M/s. Hermeet Kaur Bakshi Vs M/s Conscient Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The main allegation of the above Applicant was that GST @12% was charged instead of 8%. However as noticed from the demand letter dated 16.04.2018 which the above Applicant had quoted the total value was shown as Rs. 3,21,124/- and the taxable […]
Sh. Varun Goel Vs M/s Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Ltd. (NAA) We have carefully considered the Report of the DGAP, the submissions of the Respondent and all the documents placed on record. From the perusal of the facts of the DGAP’s Report it is revealed that the ratio of ITC to the taxable turnover during the […]
In view of the fact that there was no reduction in the rate of tax nor there was increased additional benefit on account of ITC, the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 could not be invoked in this case.
Respondent had issued incorrect invoices while selling the above products to his recipients as he had incorrectly shown the base prices and had also compelled them to pay additional GST on the increased prices through the incorrect tax invoices which would have otherwise resulted in further benefit to the recipients.
The issue that needs to be dwelled upon is as to whether there was a case of not passing on of the benefit of ITC and whether the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 are attracted in the present case.
