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 Tribunal held that maintaining ticket prices by increasing base price after GST reduction violated Section 171. It directed de...
Goods and Services Tax : The case addressed increased ITC benefits post-GST without corresponding price reduction. The tribunal ruled this violated Section...
Goods and Services Tax : The dispute concerned failure to reduce prices after GST. The Tribunal held that documentary evidence showed benefit was already t...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTAT held that no anti-profiteering violation arises where construction, agreement, and payments occur entirely in the GST regime...
Goods and Services Tax : The issue involved a calculation error in the final order. The Tribunal clarified the correct per sq. ft. benefit including GST an...
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 case confirms that an increase in ITC must result in price reduction for buyers. The Tribunal found profiteering where such benefit was not passed on, directing refund with interest.
GSTAT accepted the DGAP investigation finding that the developer retained additional ITC benefit after GST introduction. The amount must be passed on to buyers with interest.
GSTAT directed the DGAP to re-examine the profiteering computation after questions were raised about ignored cost increases, negative values, and supply channel considerations.
GSTAT concluded that elimination of entertainment tax and other levies reduced the effective tax incidence, requiring suppliers to pass on the benefit to subscribers.
The Tribunal found merit in the respondent’s argument that ITC comparison should be based on identical goods and services and directed DGAP to re-investigate.
GSTAT held that although profiteering of ₹1.70 crore was computed, the developer had passed on ₹2.02 crore to home-buyers. With compliance under Section 171 CGST established, no penalty was imposed, though interest must be paid.
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report finding no extra ITC benefit after GST implementation and held that Section 171 was not violated.
The GST Appellate Tribunal held that Section 171 does not apply where the housing project began and was executed fully after GST implementation. It accepted the DGAPs finding of no profiteering and closed proceedings.
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report after verifying that the developer passed on ITC benefits exceeding the computed liability. With the balance amount paid, no further action was required under Section 171 of the CGST Act.
The Tribunal held that additional ITC benefits under GST were not passed on to homebuyers across three projects. The builder must refund ₹98.72 lakh with interest under Section 171 of the CGST Act.
