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 […]
Smt. Mandalika Sakunthala Vs M/s Fabindia Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The company reduced his base prices and the profit margins to maintain the same MRP inspite of the increase in the tax rate. In another product, reduction in the base prices found to be more than the additional ITC eligible thereon. Respondent has […]
Sh. Raman Khaira Vs M/s. Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have carefully considered the Report filed by the Applicant No. 2 as well as the submissions made by the Respondent No. 1 and it is obvious from the narration of the facts stated above that the investigation conducted in the matter […]
Respondent could not establish profiteering for want of cogent and reliable evidence and hence no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 has been found in this case.
Shri Ankur Jain Vs M/s. Kunj Lub Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Conclusion: Denial benefit of the reduction in GST rate to the consumers was in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017; therefore, respondent-company was directed to reduce the price of the product commensurate to the reduction […]
