Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

GST - ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 11 of 11 Records

More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.

• 2020 (9) TMI 775 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  
  Profiteering - foot wear (Shoes) - allegation that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of rate reduction when the rate of GST was reduced - contravention of provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - penalty - HELD THAT:- 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 to 30.11.2018 and hence, the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. It is also clear from the record that the Respondent has also paid the entire profiteered amount in the Consumer Welfare Funds of the Central and the State Governments along with interest. It is also revealed from the perusal of the CGST Act and the R....... + More

---

• 2020 (9) TMI 498 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  
  Profiteering - supply of Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films - allegation that the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST not passed on by way of commensurate reduction in price - contravention of provisions of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the investigation carried out by the DGAP that the base price of the admission ticket has been increased from ₹ 84.75 to ₹ 89.29 for the Emerald Circle category and from ₹ 59.32/- to ₹ 60.50/- for the Dress Circle category as mentioned in Table-A above. Therefore, the Respondent has not reduced the base prices of the admission tickets in respect of the Emerald Circle and Dress Circle categories, instead maintained the pre-rate reduction cum tax prices by increasing the base prices of the above categories of admiss....... + More

---

• 2020 (9) TMI 497 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  
  Profiteering - supply of Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematography films where the price of admission ticket - allegation that the reduction in the rate of GST not passed on by way of commensurate reduction in price - violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - penalty - HELD THAT:- It is observed from the record that the Respondent is engaged in the business of running of cinema screens and sale of cinema tickets in the State of Telengana. It is also revealed from the plain reading of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 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 ITC. On the issue of reduction in the tax rate, it is apparent from the record that there has been a reduction in t....... + More

---

• 2020 (9) TMI 160 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  
  Profiteering - purchase of apartment - allegation that the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) not passed on - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD 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 on to the buyers of the flats of the above project by commensurately reducing the prices of the flats which he has not done and hence he has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 171 (2) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules. 2017 the profiteered amount is determined as ₹ 9,67,330/- which also includes the GST on the base profiteered amount of ₹ 8,63....... + More

---

• 2020 (9) TMI 159 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  
  Profiteering - purchase of villa - allegation that benefit of ITC not passed on by way of commensurate reduction in price - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - Penalty - HELD THAT:- It has been revealed that the 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. Penalty - HELD THAT:- 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 notice dated 05.07.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.

---

• 2020 (9) TMI 99 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  
  Profiteering - purchase of flat - allegation that the benefit ITC not passed to be buyers - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- It has been revealed that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of ITC to his buyers w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and hence, the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Penalty - HELD THAT:- 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), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, the notice dated 17.01.2020 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.

---

• 2020 (9) TMI 98 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  
  Profiteering - purchase of flat - allegation that the benefit ITC not passed to be buyers - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- It has been revealed that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of ITC 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. Penalty - HELD THAT:- Since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 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. Accordingly, the notice dated 26.11.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.

---

• 2020 (9) TMI 40 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  
  Profiteering - purchase of flat - allegation that the Respondent had denied the benefit of input tax credit by way of reduction of price - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- It has been revealed that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of input tax credit to his buyers w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2018 and hence, the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Penalty - HELD THAT:- Since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2018 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. Accordingly, the notice dated 26.11.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.

---

• 2020 (9) TMI 39 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  
  Profiteering - purchase of flat - allegation that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit by way of commensurate reduction of price - contravention of provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It has been revealed that the 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. Penalty - HELD THAT:- Since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 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. Accordingly, the notice dated 18.12.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.

---

• 2020 (9) TMI 38 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  
  Profiteering - Sanitary Napkins - allegation that the reduction of rate of GST not passed on by way of commensurate reduction in prices - Contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - Penalty - HELD THAT:- It has been revealed that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of reduction in GST rate from 12% to Nil on the above product w.e.f. 27.07.2018 to 30.09.2018 and hence, the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Penalty - HELD THAT:- 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. Accordingly, the notice dated 03.07.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped.

---

• 2020 (9) TMI 37 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  
  Profiteering - Maggi Noodles Pack having MRP ₹ 5/- - allegation that the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST not passed on by way of commensurate reduction in price - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- 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 Act, 2017. Penalty - HELD THAT:- Since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 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. Accordingly, the notice dated 10.10.2018 issued to the Res....... + More

---