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 Tribunal held that although profiteering was initially computed, the developer had already passed on a higher amount to the buyer. With full discharge of Section 171 obligations, proceedings were closed.
Proceedings were closed after it was confirmed that GST ITC benefits had already been passed on to flat buyers. The decision emphasizes that resolved ITC benefit disputes do not warrant continued proceedings.
An anti-profiteering complaint was dismissed after investigation showed the project started after GST implementation. The decision highlights that Section 171 does not apply without a pre-GST to post-GST comparison.
The GST Appellate Tribunal accepted the DGAP report after finding no profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act. With no appearance from the complainant, the proceedings were concluded and the case was disposed of.
The GST Appellate Tribunal held that the profiteering amount must exclude benefits already passed on to home buyers. The respondent was directed to refund the net amount with interest to eligible buyers within three months.
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report after the complainant failed to appear despite confirmed receipt of the hearing notice. The ruling shows that proceedings may be concluded when a complainant does not participate.
The GST Appellate Tribunal remanded the case to the DGAP after the respondent admitted that incorrect figures were earlier submitted. The Tribunal directed reinvestigation under Rule 133(4) without examining the merits.
The Tribunal accepted the anti-profiteering report after the respondent agreed to pay ₹67.02 crore to eligible homebuyers. The ruling directs payment within three months along with applicable interest, closing the dispute through an undertaking.
The Tribunal held that allegations of profiteering were not substantiated after detailed verification of records and returns. It concluded that GST liabilities were duly discharged and the complaint was liable to be dropped.
The tribunal remanded the matter after the respondent admitted incorrect figures were submitted earlier, directing reinvestigation so that profiteering is recalculated on correct data.
