State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd (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 and that the rate of tax in the Post-GST era has also […]
The rate of tax applicable to the product had increased from 14.5% (12.5% Excise Duty + 2% CST) in pre-GST era to 28% in the post-GST regime. Consequently, the DGAP has stated that as there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the product in the post-GST era as compared to the pre-GST era, the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 were not contravened and hence the allegation of profiteering by the Respondent was not established.
Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering Vs M/s. Asian Granito India Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have carefully examined the DGAP’s report and the documents placed on record to examine whether there was any reduction in the GST rate and whether the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax was passed on or not […]
NAA held that Respondent Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has resorted to profiteering being very well aware of the law and the rules which warranted him to pass on the benefit of GST rate reductions. Further he has also consciously and illegally recovered the excess realisation which was due to his RSs as ITC and thereby denied the benefit of tax reductions to the customers.
State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Zeba Distributors (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) As there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the Eastern Meat Masala, hence the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are not attracted. There is also no increase in the per unit […]
Shri Shylesh Damodaran Vs Landmark Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is clear from the plain reading of Section 171 (1) 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 […]
Respondent had not reduced the prices of 2 products viz. the Nestle Munch Nuts 32 Gm. Chocolate and the Cadbury Dairy Milk Chocolate (here-in-after referred to as the products) and had thus not passed on the benefit of such rate reduction
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs J. P. and Sons (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The brief facts of the present case are that the Standing Committee vide the minutes of it’s meeting dated 13.04.2018 had requested the DGAP to initiate investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on the allegation that the Respondent had […]
Respondent is directed to reduce the sale price of the above items immediately commensurate to the reduction in the price due to ITC of erstwhile chargeable CVD which is now available in the form of IGST and pass on this benefit to his customers.
Shri Ravi Charaya Vs M/s Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) issue orders against M/s Hardcastle restaurants P Ltd ( Mcdonald) for charging more than than he could have by issuing incorrect invoce post reduction of GST from 18% to 5%. Amount of profiteering determined at Rs.7.49 crore. Company directed […]
