-
Commissioner CGST/SGST Maharashtra is directed to ensure that the amount profiteered by the Respondent is deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund
DGAP vs. Neeva Foods Pvt. Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3976 (NAA)
-
Income arising out of screening/exhibition of cinematograph films in multiplexes is subjected to entertainment tax of 17.30% which was built into the cost of tickets, however post GST, said entertainment tax was subsumed into GST and rate was fixed at 28%.
DGAP vs. M/s Prasad Media Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3950 (NAA)
-
The legal requirement is abundantly clear that in the event of a benefit of Input Tax Credit or reduction in the rate of tax, there must be a commensurate reduction in prices of the goods or services.
DGAP vs. Phillips India Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3928 (NAA)
-
Respondent has passed on benefit to the end user/final consumer by reducing MRP to the extent of GST rate reduction.
DGAP vs. Tanya Enterprises (Vini Cosmetics)
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3927 (NAA)
-
Respondent’s submissions and accompanying data are voluminous and require thorough scrutiny and may entail a revised mathematical computation of profiteering amount.
DGAP vs. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3915 (NAA)
-
Import in present case took place before GST implementation when the quotation was provided to Applicant, therefore, Respondent would have suffered CVD @12.5% and SAD @ 4% at the time of import, while refund of SAD would have been available, CVD would have become an embedded part of cost of product in said quotation.
DGAP vs. Printing Machine Solutions
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3686 (NAA)
-
DGAP has computed base prices in respect of all the 68 dimension wise units of the product being sold by the Respondent and compared their commensurate prices with actual sale prices post rate reduction, holds same to be reasonable, appropriate and accurate.
DGAP vs. Litecon Industries Pvt Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3685 (NAA)
-
Principles of determination of injury, evidence of dumping and calculation of non-injurious price which have been provided under the Customs Tariff Rules cannot be applied in case of anti-profiteering provisions as the fundamentals and basics of both are entirely different.
Mr. Rahul Sharma and DGAP vs. McNROE Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3656 (NAA)
-
The profiteering amount should come down to 9 crore approx. due to following reasons viz. amount related to stock transfer was liable to be excluded, higher base price ought to be have taken by DGAP for comparison, amount related to SKU of brand ‘SAVLON Moisture Hand Wash’ was launched first time post-GST, goods returned did not amount to actual sale.
DGAP vs. ITC Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3540 (NAA)
-
DGAP has left rectification of the above claims on this Authority, however no grounds have been mentioned on the basis of which this Authority can decide why the above recommendations of the DGAP should be accepted, absent which Authority cannot pass reasoned and just order.
DGAP vs. L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3539 (NAA)
-
DGAP had calculated the ratio of ITC to turnover for the pre-GST period by taking data of partial/ truncated period of 15 months, while ratio of ITC to turnover of pre-GST period should have been calculated on the basis of all credit legally available to him in the total period of construction in pre-GST regimes.
Mr. Sumit Mansingka and DGAP vs. E-Homes Infrastructure Private Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3471 (NAA)
-
In terms of Rule 129(2), during the course of investigation, in case it comes to the notice of DGAP that a registered person has not passed on the benefits to those persons who have not filed complaint against registered person, he is legally bound to investigate the same and bring such violation before the Authority for determination of those benefits to eligible recipients.
Potnoor Naveen and DGAP vs. Caroa Properties LLP
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 3443 (NAA)
-
NAA - Benefit of reduction in rate of duty has not been passed on to applicants despite the reduction in tax rate - Profiteering allegation upheld.
Director General of Anti- Profiteering vs. Nestle India Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 3412 (NAA)
-
NAA - Profiteering has to be seen from the prism of the consumer and if he had to pay more than the commensurately reduced price, it amount to profiteering.
Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering and DGAP vs. IFB Industries Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 3411 (NAA)
-
Section 171 clearly links profiteering to be function of each supply of goods or services or both and hence, profiteering needs to be computed at the level of each tax invoice. From a plain reading of Section 171, it is amply clear that the total quantum of profiteering by a registered person is the sum total of all the benefits that stood denied to each of the recipients/consumers individually.
Director General of Anti- Profiteering vs. Signature Global Developers Pvt. Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 3341 (NAA)
-
Upon introduction of GST, the rate of tax was increased to 18% during post GST period from 6% during pre-GST period and considering the pre-GST credit of CENVAT to the ITC during pre-GST period with ITC available to the Respondent in post-GST period, it is clear that Respondent has benefitted from additional ITC.
Paval Antony vs. Shree Mahalakshmi Enterprises, Doshi Housing, Doshi Towers
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 3340 (NAA)
-
Confirms case of profiteering against the Respondent dealing in vitrified tiles, directs deposit of profiteered amount of Rs. 54.67 lakhs.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering vs. Adarsh Marbles
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 2848 (NAA)
-
A case of profiteering in respect of footwear while holding that benefit of rate reduction was not passed was upholded by NAA.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering vs. Pinky Sales
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 2847 (NAA)
-
Profiteering in respect of the supply of “Sanitary Napkins” while finding that benefit of tax reduction was not passed was upholded by NAA.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Bhutani International Medicos
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 2843 (NAA)
-
A case of profiteering in respect of villa booked in Respondent’s project ‘City Park’ is upholded by NAA.
Director General of Anti- Profiteering vs. Sun Infra Services Pvt. Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 2838 (NAA)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.