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...
Joydeep Sarkar Vs Himalaya Drug Company (NAA) Fact of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that under Rule 128 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 an application dated 27.11.2017 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering by the Applicant No. 1 alleging that the Respondent had […]
Initially, the body was introduced for two years but the same has been extended for two more years. Till date, the body has passed 137 orders most of which have found the suppliers guilty of profiteering. There is no appeal provision in the Act but various parties in cases of larger amounts have been preferred Writ Applications in High Courts and generally stay on the order has been granted. In some cases, the appeals have been found to be in favour of the party.
Director-General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Facts of the case: The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 23.11.2017 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, by Ms. Neeru Varshney before the Standing Committee vide which she alleged that the […]
Shri Kapil Dev Sharma Vs Director General of Anti-Profiteering (NAA) The DGAP has further reported that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 came into play in the event where there was a reduction in the rate of tax or there was an increase in the benefit of ITC. In the present case, since the […]
Shri Rahul Sharma Vs Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd.(National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Brief facts of the case are that an application dated 31.07.2018 was filed, under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent, by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from […]
Rahul Sharma Vs Tanya Enterprises (NAA) The brief facts of the case are that the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering vide its communication dated 11.03.2019 had requested the DGAP to conduct a detailed investigation as per Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules on the allegation that M/s Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. had not passed on […]
Kerala State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Phillips India Ltd. (NAA) The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 vide the minutes of its meeting held on 08.05.2018 had referred the present case to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, alleging profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of “Food Processor” […]
Rahul Kumar Vs. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The brief facts of the case are that vide his application dated 07.01.2019 filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applicant No. 1 had alleged profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of Flat […]
Sh. Rahul Sharma Vs J.K. Helene Curtis Ltd. (NAA) The brief facts of the case are that the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering vide its communication dated 11.03.2019 had requested the DGAP to conduct a detailed investigation as per Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules on the allegation that M/s Raymond Ltd. had not passed […]
Shri Anil Sharma Vs Printing Machine Solutions (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) This Report dated 25.10.2019 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that an application dated […]
