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 : 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 case examined whether GST rate cuts were passed on to consumers. The authority held that increasing base prices instead of red...
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 : 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...
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 […]
The appellate authority sent the matter back for re-investigation after the developer claimed that a higher benefit than alleged profiteering was already passed to buyers. The key takeaway is that factual verification of claimed price reductions is essential before confirming profiteering.
The Tribunal held that where the input tax credit ratio reduced in the post-GST period, no additional benefit accrued to the developer. Consequently, no profiteering under Section 171 was established.
The Tribunal held that increasing base prices after a GST rate reduction defeated the statutory mandate of Section 171. Profiteering was confirmed as the benefit of tax reduction was not passed on to consumers.
The Tribunal held that no profiteering arose where the ITC-to-cost ratio declined after GST. The key takeaway is that absence of GST-led savings defeats section 171 allegations.
The tribunal accepted an area-based methodology for computing profiteering in a housing project, rejecting turnover-linked calculations. The ruling confirms that uniform per-square-foot benefit must be passed on to all eligible buyers.
A slight increase in post-GST ITC was held to amount to profiteering when not passed on. The tribunal directed refund of the quantified benefit with interest to eligible buyers.
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.
