Case Law Details
Case Name : Sh. Kavi Mahajan Vs M/s Heeranandani Realtors Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
National Anti-Profiteering Authority
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
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 he has not passed on the above benefit to his customers and has profiteered an amount of Rs. 3,79,10,058/- inclusive of GST @ 12% on the base profiteered amount of Rs. 3,38,48,266/-. Further,
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Off-hand
According to one’s reading and understanding of the Order of the NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY, there has been a clean, blatant violation of the governing Rules/ mandates. And, that relates to both Pre-GST and Post – GST periods, which fall in two years of account. The amounts of excess profit, including compensatory interest thereon directed to be paid to the ‘buyers’ are, by any standard, quite material and substantially large.
On the hindsight, it is the ‘quality of,- apart from the internal control within the domain of the responsible in-house officers namely, CEO, CFO and CS – it is the quality of the statutory audits (financial audit, tax audit and GST audit) that become gravely suspect.
These are common observations/ grievances of equal relevance to the other two similar cases reported on this website in a row in just a day.
May be, this does call for a serious look through by the ICAI having regard to / in the backdrop of its lately mooted idea of ‘review of quality of tax audits’ by a specially constituted Board for the purpose – Agree?!
OVER to…
courtesy
(in exclusive public interest)