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...
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 investigation report finding no savings in pre- and post-GST credit ratios. With complainants settling disputes and withdrawing complaints, the proceedings were closed.
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.
The tribunal held that failure to reduce ticket prices after a GST rate cut amounted to profiteering and upheld recovery of the excess amount. The ruling clarifies that tax benefits must be passed on through commensurate price reduction.
GSTAT ruled that Raj & Company failed to pass on GST rate cut from 28% to 18% on cosmetics, profiteering ₹3.31 lakh. Distributor directed to deposit with interest.
