Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering Vs M/s. Sudarsans (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) DGAP has submitted in his report that the rate of tax on the product Brief (Jockey Brief IC125 M Black), remained same in the pre-GST and the post- GST era. Moreover, the pre-GST and post-GST base prices (excluding tax) had remained the same. Therefore, […]
Director General Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Satya Enterprises (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) 1. The brief facts of the present case are that a reference was made by this Authority to the Director General Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), erstwhile Director General Safeguards, under rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 intimating that certain major manufacturers […]
Shri Surya Prakash Loonker Vs M/s Excel Rasayan Pvt. Ltd (NAA) it is clear that the Respondent has admittedly not passed on the benefit of tax reduction since the base prices of the above two products were increased to maintain the same selling prices which were existing before the reduction in the rate of tax. […]
M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs Director General Anti-Profiteering Central Board of Indirect Tax (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have carefully considered the DGAP’s Report and the documents placed on record to examine whether there was any reduction in the rate of tax during the implementation of the GST and whether the benefit of reduction in […]
It is also revealed that the reduction in discount doesn’t amount to profiteering as the same was offered from his profit margin by the Respondent and doesn’t not form part of the base price and therefore, the Respondent cannot be held guilty under Section 171 of the Act.
State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Ahuja Radios (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The DGAP after scrutiny of the above two invoices issued by the Respondent has intimated that there was no increase in the per unit price (excluding GST) in respect of both the products mentioned in the above invoices. The base Price per unit […]
It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01-07-2017, as could be seen from the table given above. There is also no increase in the per unit base price (excluding tax) of the above product and therefore the allegation of profiteering is not established.
Kerala State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Janson (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01-07-2017, hence the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax […]
The legal obligation imposed on deqaler cannot be ignored only because he is not the manufacturer who controls the prices, as he is accountable as a supplier to pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction. T
Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering Vs M/s Impact Clothing Co. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have carefully considered the Report of the DGAP and the documents placed on record and find that the only issue that needs to be dwelled upon is as to whether there was a case of reduction in the rate of […]
