NAA

GST Profiteering established in Duracell Battery supply case: NAA

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 Battery AA/6 by respondent. NAA asked to deposit the same in consumer welfare fund along with interest @ 18%. Facts of Case The brief facts of the case are that an application was filed […]...

Read More

Profiteering Complaints Adjudicated by NAA In 2018

Goods and Services Tax - During the year 2018, the NAA has passed 28 orders against the complaints referred to it. Following is the gist of NAA Orders issued in 2018. It may be noted that out of 28 Orders, Anti-profiteering could not be established in 18 cases....

Read More

No Profiteering when Base Price is Constant & Selling Price Reduced

Goods and Services Tax - Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal, FCA, FCS The complaint against profiteering came up recently before the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) in a case involving supply of tiles. In Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering & DGAP, CBIC New Delhi v. Asian Grantio India Ltd., Ahmedabad, the NAA vide its Order dated 24.12.2018 orde...

Read More

Anti Profiteering Upheld In Noodles Case

Goods and Services Tax - In yet another case where anti-profiteering charges have been established, the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) has confirmed that sale of Maggie Noodle pack (Noodles) at same price even after rate of GST on it was reduced from 18% to 12% w.e.f. 15 November, 2017 was a case of anti-profiteering u/s 171 of the CGST Act 2017 read ...

Read More

National Anti-Profiteering Authority- Procedure & Methodology

Goods and Services Tax - In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 126 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017, the National Anti-Profiteering Authority under the Goods & Services Tax hereby notifies the following Methodology and Procedure for determination as to whether the reduction in the rate of tax on the supply of goods or services or [...

Read More

Empanelment & Guidelines for empanelment of Advocates to defend NAA

Goods and Services Tax - Empanelment of Advocates / Law Firms for representing the National Anti-profiteering Authority and Director General of Anti-Profiteering before various Courts and Tribunals....

Read More

NAA tenure extended for 2 Years; Phased electronic invoicing system introduction; Decision on GSTAT

Goods and Services Tax - The tenure of National Anti-Profiteering Authority has been extended by 2 years. The Council also decided to introduce electronic invoicing system in a phase-wise manner for B2B transactions. E- invoicing is a rapidly expanding technology which would help taxpayers in backward integration and automation of tax relevant processes....

Read More

NAA passes 60 orders against complaints of profiteering

Goods and Services Tax - Anti-Profiteering Measures The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) was constituted on 28th November, 2017 under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 to ensure that the reduction in rate of tax or the benefit of input tax credit is passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Important steps taken by the NAA ...

Read More

Complaints received by National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) 

Goods and Services Tax - The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) has been constituted under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to ensure that the reduction in rate of tax or the benefit of input tax credit is passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Further, the following steps have been taken by the N...

Read More

Logix Infrastructure guilty of not passing ITC benefit to Homebuyers: NAA

Sh. Rajender Meena Vs Logix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) - Sh. Rajender Meena Vs Logix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We take note of the fact that Respondent vide his submissions dated 05.06.2020 has accepted his liability of passing on the benefit of additional ITC as per the report of the DGAP and has also submitted that h...

Read More

Anti-profiteering Penalty Provision not in existence till 31.12.2019: NAA

Deepak Kumar Khurana Vs Sattva Developers Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) - Deepak Kumar Khurana Vs Sattva Developers Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171(3A). Since no penalty provisions were i...

Read More

Pivotal Infrastructure guilty of not passing ITC benefit to Flat Buyers: NAA

Ajay Kumar Vs Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) - Ajay Kumar Vs Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) It is established from the perusal of the above facts that the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 2.67% of the turnover during the period from July 2017 to December 2018 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of the...

Read More

Section 171(3A) Penalty for profiteering not retrospective: NAA

Vivek Gupta Vs Gurukripa Developers & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) - Vivek Gupta Vs Gurukripa Developers & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed unde...

Read More

NAA directs reinvestigation as it found profiteered amount computed as incorrect

Rahul Sharma Vs Mataji Paints and Hardware (NAA) - Rahul Sharma Vs Mataji Paints and Hardware (NAA) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that an un­dated application was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1 alleging prof...

Read More

CBIC Field formations to also defend cases on behalf of NAA (GST)

F.No.280/26/2018-CX.8A - (23/10/2018) - Field formations shall henceforth, also defend the cases on behalf of National Anti‑profiteering Authority (GST), New Delhi pending before the Hon'ble courts....

Read More

Recent Posts in "NAA"

Logix Infrastructure guilty of not passing ITC benefit to Homebuyers: NAA

Sh. Rajender Meena Vs Logix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Sh. Rajender Meena Vs Logix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We take note of the fact that Respondent vide his submissions dated 05.06.2020 has accepted his liability of passing on the benefit of additional ITC as per the report of the DGAP and has also submitted that he had passed on the benefit of […...

Read More

Anti-profiteering Penalty Provision not in existence till 31.12.2019: NAA

Deepak Kumar Khurana Vs Sattva Developers Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Deepak Kumar Khurana Vs Sattva Developers Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171(3A). Since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01...

Read More

Pivotal Infrastructure guilty of not passing ITC benefit to Flat Buyers: NAA

Ajay Kumar Vs Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Ajay Kumar Vs Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) It is established from the perusal of the above facts that the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 2.67% of the turnover during the period from July 2017 to December 2018 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, […]...

Read More

Section 171(3A) Penalty for profiteering not retrospective: NAA

Vivek Gupta Vs Gurukripa Developers & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Vivek Gupta Vs Gurukripa Developers & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on ...

Read More

NAA directs reinvestigation as it found profiteered amount computed as incorrect

Rahul Sharma Vs Mataji Paints and Hardware (NAA)

Rahul Sharma Vs Mataji Paints and Hardware (NAA) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that an un­dated application was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent. The [&hellip...

Read More

NAA directs DGAP to Re-Investigate as Mathematical Methodology Adopted by DGAP was Not Logical

Joydeep Sarkar Vs Himalaya Drug Company (NAA)

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 […]...

Read More

NAA directed Re-Investigation & Re-Computation of Profiteered Amount for Lifestyle International

Director-General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

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 all...

Read More

Respondent bound to provide invoice wise details of outward taxable supplies to DGAP: NAA

Shri Rahul Sharma Vs Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

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 [...

Read More

NAA directs DGAP to verify claim of Issue of Credit notes for passing ITC benefit

Sh. Vivek Gupta Vs Maheshwari Infratech Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Report of the DGAP the claim made by the Respondent that he has passed on the benefit of ITC by issuing credit notes also needs to be verified. Based on the above findings, the Report dated 24.09.2019 furnished by the DGAP cannot be accepted and the DGAP is directed to further investigate the present case under Rule 133 (4) of the CGST Ru...

Read More

NAA directs DGAP to Further Investigate Profiteered amount by Cloudtail India

Samit Chakraborty Vs Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Samit Chakraborty Vs Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Fact of the Case: 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 detailed investigation as per Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules on the allegation made by the Applicant No. [&hellip...

Read More

DGAP cannot claim non-passing of ITC Benefit to buyer without evidence: NAA

Smt. Naina Rani Vs Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Smt. Naina Rani Vs Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Fact of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that vide her application dated 30.11.2018 filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applicant No. 1 had alleged profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase [&hell...

Read More

NAA directs DGAP to investigate eligibility of ITC of Buyers & Sahej Realcon

Arbind Biswal Vs Sahej Realcon Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Arbind Biswal Vs Sahej Realcon Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Fact of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that vide his application dated 07.01.2019 filed on the Complaint Portal of this Authority which was forwarded to the Odisha State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering on 05.02.2019, under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the […]...

Read More

NAA directs DGAP to Recompute Profiteered Amount in case of Portonics Digital

Shri Rahul Sharma Vs Portonics Digital Pvt Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Shri Rahul Sharma Vs Portonics Digital Pvt Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 26.02.2019 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1 which alleged that the Respondent had pro...

Read More

NAA allows DGAP to recompute amount of profiteering by Subway franchisee

Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Vs Dough Makers India Pvt Ltd. (NAA)

Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Vs Dough Makers India Pvt Ltd. (NAA) Fact of the Case: The brief facts of the present case are that a reference was received from the Standing Committee on Anti Profiteering on 27.03.2019 by the DGAP, to conduct a detailed investigation in respect of an application (originally examined by the […]...

Read More

DGAP investigation not illegal if Benefit of Tax Reduction Not Passed within Prescribed Period of 2 Months

Rahul Sharma Vs J. K. Helene Curtis Ltd. (NAA)

Rahul Sharma Vs J. K. Helene Curtis Ltd. (NAA) Facts of the Case: 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 […]...

Read More

DGAP Investigation against Cloudtail India under rule129 (1) is Legal: NAA

Samit Chakraborty Vs Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Samit Chakraborty Vs Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Facts of the case: 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 detailed investigation as per Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules on the allegation made by the Applicant No. [&helli...

Read More

NAA directed DGAP to Re-Investigate in case of Pearlite Real Properties

Sh. Parvez Khan Vs Pearlite Real Properties Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Parvez Khan Vs Pearlite Real Properties Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the present case are that an application dated 15.10.2018 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1, alleging profiteering [&he...

Read More

NAA directed DGAP to Re-Investigate in case of E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Sumit Mansingka Vs E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Sumit Mansingka Vs E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.  Facts of the case: The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint dated 18.12.2017 was filed before the Uttar Pradesh State level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering by the Applicant No.1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of a flat in the Res...

Read More

NAA directs DGAP to reinvestigate profiteering in the case of Himalaya Real Estate

Rahul Gautam Vs Himalaya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Rahul Gautam Vs Himalaya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application dated 16.10.2018 before the Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 (2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and submitted that […]...

Read More

In Absence of Clear-Cut Findings, NAA directed DGAP to Further Investigate

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs L'Oreal India Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that it was alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST on the Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs) being supplied by him, when [&hellip...

Read More

DGAP directed to further Verify ITC Benefit amount under Rule 133(4)

Sh. Bhanja Kishore Pradhan Vs HCBS Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Sh. Bhanja Kishore Pradhan Vs HCBS Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 filed application, dated 19.09.2018, before the National Anti-profiteering Authority under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The said application was ...

Read More

NAA directs DGAP to further Verify total amount of ITC Benefit

Ajay Kumar Vs Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (NAA)

Ajay Kumar Vs Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (NAA) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that vide their applications dated 09.10.2018 and 16.12.2019 filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applicant No. 1 and 2 had alleged profiteering by the Respondent [&hell...

Read More

NAA directs DGAP to Further Investigate Matter of ITC Ltd

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs ITC Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs ITC Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering vide its communication dated 14.09.2018 had requested the DGAP to conduct detailed investigation as per Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules on the allegatio...

Read More

NAA directs DGAP to Re-Investigate Issues in case of Wheelabrator Alloy Castings

Kishore Arjandas Udasi Vs Wheelabrator Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Kishore Arjandas Udasi Vs Wheelabrator Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case are that vide his application dated 09.08.2018 filed before the Maharashtra State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 (2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applicant No. 1 had alleged profiteering by the Resp...

Read More

Infinity Retail guilty of Profiteering: NAA

M. Srinivas Vs Infinity Retail Ltd. (NAA)

M. Srinivas Vs Infinity Retail Ltd. (NAA) The present Report dated 23.12.2019, has been furnished by 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 29.03.2019 was file...

Read More

No Anti-Profiteering penalty between the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018

Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs Nirala Projects Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs Nirala Projects Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) It is revealed from the perusal of the CGST Act and the Rules framed under it that the Central Government vide Notification No. 01/2020-Central Tax dated 01.01.2020 has implemented the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 from 01.01.2020 vide which sub-section 171 (3A) was [&hel...

Read More

Starbucks Guilty of Profiteering under GST: NAA

Avanti Patel Vs Starbucks Coffee (NAA)

Avanti Patel Vs Starbucks Coffee (NAA) The brief facts of the present case are that under Rule 128 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, an application was filed by the Applicant No. 1 against the Respondent before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering alleging that the Respondent had not passed on […]...

Read More

NAA directs DGAP to recompute the amount of profiteering by Devi Cinema

Principal Commissioner Vs Devi 70 MM (NAA)

Principal Commissioner Vs Devi 70 MM (NAA) The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) directed the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering to reinvestigate and recompute the quantum of profiteering against Devi Cinema. It is a fact that the price of two categories i.e. the First and the Second class movie tickets has been reduced com...

Read More

Re-investigate & Recompute Profiteering By Smoky Kitchen Foods: NAA to DGAP

DGAP Vs. Smookey Kitchen Foods OPC Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

DGAP Vs. Smookey Kitchen Foods OPC Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) We have carefully considered the Reports furnished by the DGAP, the contentions of the Respondent, and the other material placed on record. We observe that this case pertains to a franchisee of M/s Subway India Private Limited in Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh) who is supplying various food [&h...

Read More

Alton Buildtech guilty of not passing ITC benefit to Flat Buyers: NAA

Shashank Thakar Vs Alton Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Shashank Thakar Vs Alton Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) 1. A Report dated 14.06.2019 was received from the Applicant No. 6 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the Report were that the Applicant ...

Read More

NAA drops penalty proceedings against Signature Builders

Shri Abhishek Vs Signature Builders Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

It is also revealed that vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020 vide Notification No. 01/2020 Central Tax dated 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171 (3A) in the CGST Act, 2017...

Read More

Section 171(3A) profiteering Penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively: NAA

Shri Abhishek Vs Signature Global Developers Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively....

Read More

Section 122 penalty cannot be imposed for violation of anti-profiteering provisions

Sh. Saurabh Gahoi Vs. Pinky Sales (NAA)

Sh. Saurabh Gahoi Vs. Pinky Sales (NAA) it has been revealed that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of rate reduction when the rate of GST was reduced from 18% to 5% on foot wear, as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the period w.e.f. 27.07.2018 […]...

Read More

Shiva Parvathi Theater guilty of not passing GST reduction benefit: NAA

Principal Commissioner Vs Shiva Parvathi Theatre 70 MM (NAA)

Principal Commissioner Vs Shiva Parvathi Theatre 70 MM (NAA) The main issues to be examined in the present matter were whether the GST rate on Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematography films where price of admission ticket is above one hundred rupees” was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019 and Services [&he...

Read More

Inox Leisure Guilty of Profiteering: NAA

Principal Commissioner Vs Inox Leisure Ltd. (NAA)

The main issues to be examined in the present matter were whether the GST rate on Services by way of admission to the exhibition of cinematograph films where the price of admission ticket was above one hundred rupees was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019...

Read More

‘Shapoorji Palonji’ denied ITC benefit to Flat Buyers : NAA

Venugopal Gella Vs Shapoorji Palonji (NAA)

Venugopal Gella Vs Shapoorji Palonji (NAA) It is established from the perusal of the above facts that the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the tune of 1.99% of the total turnover in respect of the project PARKWEST-EMERALD during the period from July, 2017 to April, 2019 which he was required to pass […]...

Read More

Anti Profiteering Law Violation penalty effective from 01.01.2020

Peeyush Awasthi Vs Sun Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Peeyush Awasthi Vs Sun Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) also cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, the ...

Read More

Not passed ITC Benefit before 01.01.2020 but no section 171(3A) Penalty

Pawan Kumar Vs S3 Buildwell LLP (NAA)

Pawan Kumar Vs S3 Buildwell LLP (NAA) 1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 72 (here-in-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 04.06.2019, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had […]...

Read More

No Section 171(3A) penalty for violations between 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018

Sandeep Kumar Vs Nani Resorts and Floriculture Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Sandeep Kumar Vs Nani Resorts and Floriculture Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Penalty should not be imposed for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) during the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 as the provisions of Section 171(3A) have come into force from 01.01.2020 and they cannot have retrospective operation. FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONA...

Read More

No Penalty for violation of Section 171(1) of CGST Act before 01.01.2020

Vasantbhai Bhikabhai Patel Vs Shree Infra (NAA)

Vasantbhai Bhikabhai Patel Vs Shree Infra (NAA) Central Government vide Notification No. 01/2020- Central Tax dated 01.01.2020 has implemented the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 from 01.01.2020 vide which sub-section 171 (3A) was added in Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and penalty was proposed to be imposed in the case [&h...

Read More

No Anti-Profiteering if NO ITC availed by Respondent in post-GST period

Anonymous Vs Aryan Hometec Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Anonymous Vs Aryan Hometec Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) It is revealed from the plain reading of Section 171 (1) that it deals with two situations one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second pertaining to the passing on the benefit of the ITC. On the issue […]...

Read More

No penalty for violation of section 171 Provisions before 01.01.2020

Shri M. Srinivas Vs Director General of Anti-Profiteering (NAA)

Shri M. Srinivas Vs Director General of Anti-Profiteering (NAA) Respondent has contravened the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, since, the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 for violation of the above provisions has come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020 and the infringement pertains t...

Read More

GST: Penalty for Section 171(1) violation effective from 01.01.2020

Ratish Nair Vs Man Realty Ltd. (NAA)

Ratish Nair Vs Man Realty Ltd. (NAA) In this case Respondent has not passed on the benefit of input tax credit to his buyers w.e.f 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 and hence, the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. It is also revealed from the perusal of the CGST Act […]...

Read More

Section 171(3A) Penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively: NAA

Pranesh Pathak Vs Bhutani International Medicos (NAA)

Pranesh Pathak Vs Bhutani International Medicos (NAA) Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 27.07.2018 to 31.03.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF...

Read More

Section 171(3A) of CGST Act comes in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020

Ankur Jain Vs Kunj Lub Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Ankur Jain Vs Kunj Lub Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) It has been revealed that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 18% to 12% on the above product w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 28.02.2018 and hence, the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST […]...

Read More

Section 171(3A) Anti-Profiteering penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively

Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s VTWO Ventures (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s VTWO Ventures (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It has been revealed that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of reduction in GST rate from 28% to 18% w.e.f 15.11.2017 to 31.08.2018 and hence, the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CG...

Read More

Section 171(3A) come in to force w.e.f. 01.2020: NAA

Sh. Ashok Khatri Vs S3 Infrareality Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

It is further revealed that vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.2020, by inserting Section 171(3A)....

Read More

Section 171(3A) penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively: NAA

Shri Diwakar Bansal Vs M/s Horizon Projects Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 30.03.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively....

Read More

No penalty for violation of Section 171 (1) before 01.01.2020: NAA

Ms. Pallavi Gulati and Sh. Abhimanyu Gulati Vs M/s Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Ms. Pallavi Gulati and Sh. Abhimanyu Gulati Vs M/s Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Respondent has not passed on the benefit of input tax credit to his buyers w.e.f 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 and hence, the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. It is further revea...

Read More

Section 171(3A) penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively: NAA

Sh. Pushpak Chauhan Vs Harish Bakers & Confectioners Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Sh. Pushpak Chauhan Vs Harish Bakers & Confectioners Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171(3A). Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the ...

Read More

Subway Franchisee found Guilty of Profiteering: NAA

Director-General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Lite Bite Travel Foods Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Director-General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Lite Bite Travel Foods Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The application had been filed under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules 2017, alleging profiteering in respect of restaurant service supplied by the Respondent (Franchisee of M/s. Subway Systems India Pvt Ltd.). In the application. it w...

Read More

No penalty for denying ITC benefit to Customers prior to 01.01.2020: NAA

Sh. Varun Goel Vs Director General of Anti-Profiteering (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Sh. Varun Goel Vs Director General of Anti-Profiteering (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Penalty for not issuing an invoice or for issuing an incorrect or false invoice in respect of any supply of goods or services or both is not covered under Section 171(1) It is apparent from the perusal of Section 122 (1) (i) that the […]...

Read More

GST Profiteering established in Duracell Battery supply case: NAA

D.S. Brothers Vs Durga Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) GST Profiteering of Rs. 1,57,200 established in the case of supply of Duracell Battery AA/6 by respondent. NAA asked to deposit the same in consumer welfare fund along with interest @ 18%. Facts of Case The brief facts of the case are that an application was filed […]...

Read More

NAA detects Profiteering in supply of ‘Duracell Battery’

D.S. Brothers Vs Durga Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

D.S. Brothers Vs Durga Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) The brief facts of the case are that an application was filed by the Applicant No. 1 before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of the supply of “Duracell Battery AA/6” (hereinafte...

Read More

HC allows Samsonite to pay profiteered amount in 6 monthly instalments

M/s. Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

In this case although learned counsel for respondent-Authority objects to the grant of instalments to the petitioner Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. , yet this Court keeping in view the COVID-19 pandemic situation, directs the petitioner to deposit the principal profiteered amount i.e. Rs.21,81,20,748/-  in six equated monthly instalments...

Read More

HC allows Patanjali to deposit profiteered amount in 6 installments

Patanjali Ayurved Ltd Vs Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

Due to COVID-19 pandemic high court approves that Patanjali can deposits the amount of penalty in question in the consumer welfare fund in six monthly installments....

Read More

Empanelment & Guidelines for empanelment of Advocates to defend NAA

Empanelment of Advocates / Law Firms for representing the National Anti-profiteering Authority and Director General of Anti-Profiteering before various Courts and Tribunals....

Read More

GST Anti-profiteering- Delhi HC stays NAA order asking Reckitt to deposit Rs 63 lakh

Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited Vs Union of India And Ors (Delhi High Court)

In the latest anti profiteering case of pharma major Reckitt Benckiser over alleged profiteering of 63 lakh from the sale of Dettol handwash between 2017 to 2019, Hon’ble Delhi High court has stayed the order of National anti-profiteering authority for deposit of alleged profiteering amount in the consumer welfare fund. ...

Read More

Subway Franchisee denied tax reduction benefit to customers: NAA

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Gaurav Sharma Food Industries (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Gaurav Sharma Food Industries (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) 1. The present Report dated 31.12.2019 has been furnished by 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 case are that...

Read More

Mahindra Lifespace denies ITC benefit to customers: NAA

S. Ganapathy  Subramania Vs Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd. (NAA)

Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from the buyers of the flats of the above Project commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him has been detailed above....

Read More

Builder denies ITC benefit to FLAT buyers, Guilty of Profiteering: NAA

Jai Prakash Garg Vs Adarsh thought Works Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Jai Prakash Garg Vs Adarsh thought Works Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Based on the above facts The amount of benefit of ITC which was required to be passed on by the Respondent or the profiteered amount is determined as Rs. 1,70,28,230/- including the GST @12% on the basic profiteered amount of Rs. 1,52.03,777/- as has been […]...

Read More

NAA ask DGAP to re-investigate the case related to Shoe Polish

Sh. Ajay Jagga Vs M/s Bhatia Confectioners (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

DGAP investigated the issues of whether the GST rate applicable to the item Shoe Polish was reduced e.f. 15.11.2017 and if so, whether the benefit of such reduction in the rate of tax had been passed on by the Respondent No. 1 to his customers in terms of Section 171 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017....

Read More

Builder Guilty of not passing ITC benefit of Rs. 19.72 Crore: NAA

Sh. Shivam Agarwal Vs Gaursons Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Sh. Shivam Agarwal Vs Gaursons Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Keeping in view the self-admission of the Respondent in which he has stated that he is liable to pass on the benefit of additional ITC as per the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act, the above projects are required to be investigated as there […]...

Read More

Prasad Media guilty of profiteering- NAA

Principal Commissioner, Central Tax & Central Excise Vs Prasad Media Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Principal Commissioner Vs Prasad Media Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) NAA held that Prasad Media Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) has resorted to profiteering by way of either increasing the base prices of the service while maintaining the same selling prices or by way of not reducing the selling prices of ...

Read More

Neeva Food guilty of Profiteering, Not passed GST Benefit to Customer: NAA

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Neeva Foods Pvt, Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Neeva Foods Pvt, Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) 1. The present Report dated 27.12.2019 has been furnished by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, The briefzs facts of the case are that a ref...

Read More

HC stays Interest, Penalty & Investigation imposed by NAA in Phillips India case

Phillips India Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

Writ petition is filed for challenging order passed by National Anti-Profiteering Authority under CGST Act. HC approved Stay Application for Interest, Penalty & Investigation levied by Anti-Profiteering Authority...

Read More

Pivotal Infrastructure guilty of profiteering; Pass ITC benefit to Customers: NAA

Smt. Honey Macker Vs M/s Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Smt. Honey Macker Vs M/s Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Applicants, the Respondent and the other material placed on record and find that the Applicant No. 1 vide her complaint dated 03.08.2018 had alleged that the Respondent was not passing on the benefit of ITC to her in spite of the fact that [&he...

Read More

Vijetha Supermarkets guilty of profiteering: NAA

Shri M. Srinivas Vs Vijetha Supermarkets Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Shri M. Srinivas Vs Vijetha Supermarkets Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The Applicant had alleged that the Respondent had not reduced the selling price of the “Frozen Green Peas”, when the GST rate was reduced from 5 % to Nil w.e.f. 01.01.2019 with denial of Input Tax Credit, vide Notification No. 25/2018-Cen...

Read More

EMAAR MGF guilty of profiteering of Rs. 19 crores: NAA

Sh. Puneet Bansal Vs Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Sh. Puneet Bansal Vs Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is established from the perusal of the above facts that the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 8.73% of the turnover during the period from July, 2017 to March, 2019 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of […]...

Read More

Builder denied ITC benefit Flat buyers- Guilty profiteering- NAA

Shri Kamal Nayan Singhania Vs Elegant Properties (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Shri Kamal Nayan Singhania Vs Elegant Properties (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) In this case Respondent has profiteered by an amount of Rs. 1,42,369/- during the period of investigation. Therefore, this Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from t...

Read More

NAA directs builder to pass on benefit of ITC to Flat Buyers

Amarjeet Singh Yadav Vs Radicon Infrastructure & Housing Private Limited (NAA)

Amarjeet Singh Yadav Vs Radicon Infrastructure & Housing Private Limited (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) National Anti-Profiteering Authority hereby determines the profiteered amount as Rs. 40,92,054/- in terms of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and directs the Respondent to pass on the benefit of Rs. 6,982/- [21,496 – 1...

Read More

Whirlpool found guilty of profiteering by NAA

Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti Profiteering Vs Whirlpool of India Ltd. (NAA)

Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti Profiteering Vs Whirlpool of India Ltd. (NAA) NAA determines amount profiteered by Whirlpool  at Rs. 4,07,451/- and directed Whirlpool  to reduce the price of Refrigerator Whirlpool (HSN code 84182100) as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, keeping in view the reductio...

Read More

No Profiteering if no reduction in Tax tax or increase in ITC benefit

Shri Kapil Dev Sharma Vs Director General of Anti-Profiteering (NAA)

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 […]...

Read More

NAA upheld profiteering allegation in respect of Fogg Deo supplied to Big Bazar

Sh. Rahul Sharma Vs Tanya Enterprises (NAA)

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 […]...

Read More

GST NAA finds Philips India guilty of profiteering on Food Processor

Kerala State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Phillips India Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

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 “F...

Read More

Emaar MGF to refund profiteered amount to 1239 homebuyers: NAA

Sh. Rahul Kumar Vs. M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

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 ...

Read More

Profiteering’ charge upheld against Park Avenue product of Raymond: NAA

Sh. Rahul Sharma Vs J.K. Helene Curtis Ltd. (NAA)

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 […]...

Read More

Profiteering if benefit of reduction in the rate of tax/ additional ITC not passed to buyers

Shri Anil Sharma Vs Printing Machine Solutions (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

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 ...

Read More

Azeagaia Development agreed to pass on ITC benefit to Flat Buyers: NAA

Sh. Naresh K. Khetan Vs M/s. Azeagaia Development Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Sh. Naresh K. Khetan Vs M/s. Azeagaia Development Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The present Report dated 24.09.2019 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017....

Read More

Samsonite India Guilty of Profiteering – Not reduced Suitcase price despite GST Rate reduction

Rahul Sharma Vs Samsonite India (NAA)

Rahul Sharma Vs Samsonite India (NAA) The present Report dated 24.09.2019 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 30.0...

Read More

Non reduction of price of ‘Fly Ash Blocks despite GST Rate reduction was Profiteering: NAA

Sh. Apoorve Talera Vs Litecon Industries Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Sh. Apoorve Talera Vs Litecon Industries Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) It is established that the Respondent has acted in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and has not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to his recipients by commensurate reduction in the prices. Accordingly, the […]...

Read More

Benefit of tax reduction to the customers should be passed only by way of Rate Reduction: NAA

Sh. Rahul Sharma Vs Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Sh. Rahul Sharma Vs Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The Respondent has further contended that there was no stipulation in Section 171 which required that the benefit of rate reduction should be passed on to the customers by ‘commensurate reduction’ only in cash and methods like increase...

Read More

NAA found ‘Subway Franchisee’ guilty of Profiteering

Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Vs N. Rai Delights LLP (NAA)

Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Vs N. Rai Delights LLP (NAA) It is clear from the plain reading of Section 171(1) mentioned above that it deals with two situations one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second about the passing on the benefit of the […]...

Read More

Every customer entitled to benefit of tax rate reduction by way of reduced prices: NAA

State of Officer Vs Cilantro Diners Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

State of Officer Vs Cilantro Diners Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) The Respondent has further contended that the DGAP, while calculating the profiteered amount, had not considered the prices of products which had been reduced by him and that the DGAP has considered such impact as zero, ignoring the negative values. In this regard, we observe that [&hell...

Read More

Benefit of Tax Reduction includes both Base Price and Tax Amount: NAA

State of officer Vs Bonne Sante (NAA)

State of officer Vs Bonne Sante (NAA) The Respondent has further contended that the DGAP, while calculating the profiteered amount, was wrongly added a 5% notional amount without explaining any reasons and hence, the profiteered amount be reduced appropriately. This contention of the Respondent is not correct because the provisions of Sec...

Read More

Patanjali Ayurveda guilty of Profiteering: NAA

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd. (NAA)

The Respondent has also claimed that the pricing of products depended on a number of commercial factors. In this connection it would be pertinent to mention that the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act required the Respondent to pass on the benefit of tax reduction to the consumers only and have no mandate to look in to fixing ...

Read More

NY Cinemas found Guilty of Profiteering: NAA

Shri Himanshu Sharma Vs NY Cinemas LLP (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

It was alleged that NY Cinemas had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rates on Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films where price of admission ticket was above one hundred rupees from 28% to 18% ...

Read More

NAA not interferes with Business decisions or Right to Trade

Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Vs Le Reve Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Vs Le Reve Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The Respondent has also contended that right to trade was a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the right to trade including the right to determine prices and such right which had been granted by th...

Read More

Wild Stone Deodorant Supplier found Guilty of Profiteering: NAA

Rahul Sharma Vs McNROE Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)

Applicant had alleged that theMcNROE Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd had not pass on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% on supply of Deodorant Wild Stone Deo Chrome BX 120 ml'....

Read More

NAA directs builder to Pass ITC benefit to Buyers

Sh. Abhishek Singh Vs Aparna Constructions and Estates Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

It is established from the perusal of the above facts that the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 4.04% of the turnover during the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondent as he has not passed on the above benef...

Read More

No profiteering if Base price of Product not changed after Tax Reduction

Rahul Sharma Vs Bajaj Electricals Limited (NAA)

Rahul Sharma Vs Bajaj Electricals Limited (NAA) In the present case, we observe that the allegation of Applicant No. 1 is that the Respondent had increased the MRP of the said product from Rs. 1099/- to Rs. 1405/- or Rs. 1520/- in respect of supplies of the said product and after coming into force of […]...

Read More

Increase in Price of ‘Sujata Mixer Grinder’ post reduction in GST rate was profiteering: NAA

Shri S. C. Grover Vs Garg Kitchen Collection (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

It is found that Respondent had increased the base prices of `Sujata Mixer Grinder 900W' when the rate of GST was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 27.07.2018, so that the commensurate benefit of GST rate reduction was not passed on to his recipients....

Read More

Builder not Guilty of Profiteering if he has not availed ITC: NAA

Manabendra Nath Basu Vs Paribar Estates Pvt. Ltd (NAA)

Respondent has not availed benefit of ITC after coming in to force of the GST and he has charged GST @18% which was required to be charged as per the Notification dated 01.07.2017....

Read More

SC transfer writ petition filed against decision of NAA to Delhi HC

NAA Vs Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court)

Supreme Court directs transfer of 3 writ petition filed against the decision of NAA to Delhi High Court. Supreme Court, observing that 20 writ petition filed against order of NAA is pending before Delhi High Court, 2 before Bombay High Court  and 1 before Punjab & Haryana High Court, held that in the interests of a uniform and consistent...

Read More

Builder found guilty of denying benefit of ITC to buyers of flats: NAA

Deepak Kumar Barnwal Vs Manas Vihar Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd. (NAA)

Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from the customers/buyers commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him as has been detailed above. The above amount of Rs. 35,98,596/- which includes 18% GST on the base profiteered amount of Rs. 30,49,658/- has been profiteered by the Respondent from the Applicant No. 1 and the ot...

Read More

NAA not accepted argument of Increase in Cost on the day of Reduction in GST

Rahul Sharma Vs Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Rahul Sharma Vs Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The Respondent has also claimed that the anti-profiteering provisions were in the nature of restricting the right to carry on trade freely in terms of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and earn reasonable profit. In this connection it w...

Read More

No profiteering if ITC availed in post-GST period is low in comparison to pre-GST period

Paramjeet Rathee Vs Supertech Limited (NAA)

Paramjeet Rathee Vs Supertech Limited (NAA) The Applicant No. 1 has further contended that while calculating profiteering, the DGAP has not considered the type of sale consideration i.e. Subvention Plan or CLP Plan, pre-­GST impact of ITC on cost, Cost Sheet Proforma for Goods/Services pre-GST and post-GST, Summary of purchased materials...

Read More

NAA found Builder guilty of not passing net benefit of ITC

Manish Saini Vs Ramaprastha Promoter & Developer Pvt. Ltd. ( National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Manish Saini Vs Ramaprastha Promoter & Developer Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) It is clear from the plain reading of Section 171(1) mentioned above that it deals with two situations one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second pertaining to the passing on the benefit of the […]...

Read More

No profiteering if no change in Tax Rate in Pre & Post GST Era

Shri Rahul Sharma Vs Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

In the present case, we observe that the allegation of the Applicant No. 1 is that the Respondent had maintained the same selling price in respect of supplies of the said Power Bank before and after coming into force of Notification No. 24/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2018 and he had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GS...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,040)
Company Law (6,697)
Custom Duty (8,071)
DGFT (4,384)
Excise Duty (4,406)
Fema / RBI (4,431)
Finance (4,692)
Income Tax (35,021)
SEBI (3,751)
Service Tax (3,626)

Search Posts by Date

November 2020
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30