Goods and Services Tax : Even after the sunset clause, anti-profiteering obligations continue through tribunals and policy directions, leaving businesses e...
Goods and Services Tax : The Delhi High Court upheld an anti-profiteering order, ruling that merely increasing product quantity or volume after a GST rate ...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTAT ruled 18% interest on GST anti-profiteering amounts applies prospectively from April 1, 2020, upholding that it cannot be im...
Goods and Services Tax : Delhi HC rules increasing product quantity or base price instead of reducing MRP after a GST rate cut violates Section 171 of the ...
Goods and Services Tax : GST 2.0 rate cuts trigger Anti-Profiteering rules (Sec 171). Summary covers obligation to pass on tax/ITC benefit, MRP display nor...
Goods and Services Tax : Leading consumer and public policy research and advocacy group, CUTS International has requested the Finance Minister, Ms Nirmala ...
Goods and Services Tax : Empanelment of Advocates / Law Firms for representing the National Anti-profiteering Authority and Director General of Anti-Profit...
Goods and Services Tax : Anti-Profiteering Measures The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) was constituted on 28th November, 2017 under Section 17...
Goods and Services Tax : The appellate authority sent the matter back for re-investigation after the developer claimed that a higher benefit than alleged p...
Goods and Services Tax : The Tribunal held that where the input tax credit ratio reduced in the post-GST period, no additional benefit accrued to the devel...
Goods and Services Tax : The Tribunal held that increasing base prices after a GST rate reduction defeated the statutory mandate of Section 171. Profiteeri...
Corporate Law : The competition regulator found a prima facie case that large-scale cancellations followed by higher fares may amount to abuse of ...
Goods and Services Tax : The case examined whether a cinema operator passed on the GST reduction on ticket prices. The Tribunal held that maintaining the s...
Goods and Services Tax : GST Authority will stop accepting requests for examination of input tax credits and tax rate reductions from April 1, 2025, as per...
Goods and Services Tax : Ministry of Finance empowers GST Appellate Tribunal to examine input tax credits and tax rate reductions, effective from October 1...
Goods and Services Tax : Central Goods and Services Tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2022 – CBIC omitted following GST Rules 122,124,125,134 and 137 vi...
Goods and Services Tax : CBIC notifies Competition Commission of India to examine whether input tax credits availed by any registered person or the reducti...
The appellate authority sent the matter back for re-investigation after the developer claimed that a higher benefit than alleged profiteering was already passed to buyers. The key takeaway is that factual verification of claimed price reductions is essential before confirming profiteering.
The Tribunal held that where the input tax credit ratio reduced in the post-GST period, no additional benefit accrued to the developer. Consequently, no profiteering under Section 171 was established.
The Tribunal held that increasing base prices after a GST rate reduction defeated the statutory mandate of Section 171. Profiteering was confirmed as the benefit of tax reduction was not passed on to consumers.
The competition regulator found a prima facie case that large-scale cancellations followed by higher fares may amount to abuse of dominance. A detailed investigation has been ordered to examine unfair pricing and restriction of services.
The case examined whether a cinema operator passed on the GST reduction on ticket prices. The Tribunal held that maintaining the same cum-tax prices by increasing base prices amounted to profiteering under Section 171.
Even after the sunset clause, anti-profiteering obligations continue through tribunals and policy directions, leaving businesses exposed to uncertainty due to the lack of clear methodology.
The Tribunal held that no profiteering arose where the ITC-to-cost ratio declined after GST. The key takeaway is that absence of GST-led savings defeats section 171 allegations.
GSTAT upheld that the benefit of GST reduction from 28% to 18% was not passed on to consumers and directed recovery of ₹19.32 lakh as profiteering, to be deposited in Consumer Welfare Funds.
The tribunal accepted an area-based methodology for computing profiteering in a housing project, rejecting turnover-linked calculations. The ruling confirms that uniform per-square-foot benefit must be passed on to all eligible buyers.
A slight increase in post-GST ITC was held to amount to profiteering when not passed on. The tribunal directed refund of the quantified benefit with interest to eligible buyers.
