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...
State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Zeba Distributors (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) As there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the Eastern Meat Masala, hence the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are not attracted. There is also no increase in the per unit […]
Shri Shylesh Damodaran Vs Landmark Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is clear 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 […]
Respondent had not reduced the prices of 2 products viz. the Nestle Munch Nuts 32 Gm. Chocolate and the Cadbury Dairy Milk Chocolate (here-in-after referred to as the products) and had thus not passed on the benefit of such rate reduction
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs J. P. and Sons (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The brief facts of the present case are that the Standing Committee vide the minutes of it’s meeting dated 13.04.2018 had requested the DGAP to initiate investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on the allegation that the Respondent had […]
Respondent is directed to reduce the sale price of the above items immediately commensurate to the reduction in the price due to ITC of erstwhile chargeable CVD which is now available in the form of IGST and pass on this benefit to his customers.
Shri Ravi Charaya Vs M/s Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) issue orders against M/s Hardcastle restaurants P Ltd ( Mcdonald) for charging more than than he could have by issuing incorrect invoce post reduction of GST from 18% to 5%. Amount of profiteering determined at Rs.7.49 crore. Company directed […]
Smt. Mandalika Sakunthala Vs M/s Fabindia Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The company reduced his base prices and the profit margins to maintain the same MRP inspite of the increase in the tax rate. In another product, reduction in the base prices found to be more than the additional ITC eligible thereon. Respondent has […]
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 with Rule 128 CGST Rules, 2017 and that the dealer ought to be booked and penalized for indulging in such anti-profiteering act.
Sh. Raman Khaira Vs M/s. Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have carefully considered the Report filed by the Applicant No. 2 as well as the submissions made by the Respondent No. 1 and it is obvious from the narration of the facts stated above that the investigation conducted in the matter […]
Respondent could not establish profiteering for want of cogent and reliable evidence and hence no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 has been found in this case.
