Goods and Services Tax : Explore the constitutional validity of Anti-Profiteering provisions under GST, their impact on businesses and consumers, and the l...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the sunset of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) under GST and its logical end. Learn about its functions, mer...
Goods and Services Tax : Reason 1: Anti-profiteering provisions are Ultra vires of Article 246A of the Constitution Reason 2: Constitution of NAA is contra...
Goods and Services Tax : The Hon’ble National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA), in the case of DGAP vs. Hardcastle Restaurants [Case No. 79/2020 dated D...
Goods and Services Tax : D.S. Brothers Vs Durga Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) GST Profiteering of Rs. 1,57,200 established in the case of supply of Duracell Ba...
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 : The tenure of National Anti-Profiteering Authority has been extended by 2 years. The Council also decided to introduce electronic ...
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 National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) has been constituted under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTAT held that although profiteering of ₹1.70 crore was computed, the developer had passed on ₹2.02 crore to home-buyers. Wit...
Goods and Services Tax : The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report finding no extra ITC benefit after GST implementation and held that Section 171 was not viol...
Goods and Services Tax : The Tribunal held that additional ITC benefits under GST were not passed on to homebuyers across three projects. The builder must ...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTAT directed the DGAP to recompute the profiteered amount after noting that only the services component of the ₹89 crore pre-G...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTAT held that claims of increased royalty, rent, and commissions were unsupported by cogent evidence. The supplier failed to reb...
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...
Goods and Services Tax : I have been further directed to request you to take all possible steps envisaged under the GST Laws to ensure that the legislative...
Goods and Services Tax : Field formations shall henceforth, also defend the cases on behalf of National Anti‑profiteering Authority (GST), New Delhi pend...
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 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.
GSTAT directed the DGAP to recompute the profiteered amount after noting that only the services component of the ₹89 crore pre-GST value was considered. A revised report under Rule 133(2A) must be filed within one month.
GSTAT held that claims of increased royalty, rent, and commissions were unsupported by cogent evidence. The supplier failed to rebut the presumption that GST rate reduction must result in commensurate price cuts.
The GSTAT found that ITC reversal claimed by the developer was not factored into the original computation. The matter was remanded for verification and submission of a revised report.
The anti-profiteering investigation calculated profiteering due to enhanced ITC under GST. As the developer passed on the full benefit, including disputed sums with interest, the Tribunal disposed of the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the contractor failed to fully pass on GST input tax credit benefits under Section 171. It directed refund of ₹9.36 lakh proportionate amount with interest for completed work.
Pursuant to High Court observations and fresh investigation, GSTAT held that the developer did not gain additional ITC benefit warranting price reduction.
DG Anti Profiteering Vs Mantri Castles Private Limited (GSTAT) The proceedings arose from a reference received from the Standing Committee on 30.05.2022 to investigate an application alleging profiteering in respect of construction services supplied for the project “Mantri Serenity” at Bangalore. The allegation concerned non-passing of benefit under Section 171 of the CGST Act. The […]
