GST Library

Login | Register

Best GST Library

Contact Us

Subscription Plans

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Diary

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

Act & Rules (E-book)

GST Rates

GST Rates (E-book)

HSN Classification

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

GST Forms

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST Evasion in India

GST Videos

About Us

Contact Us

Our Services


GST e-books

GST Domains Sale

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd
®
Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Join on twitter

Join GST Group 122

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEERING, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS vs. SIGNATURE BUILDERS PVT. LTD
(National Anti Profiteering Authority)

Hon'ble Judges:

B.N.SHARMA
J.C.CHAUHAN
R.BHAGYADEVI
P
E
T
I
T
I
O
N
E
R
R
E
S
P
O
N
D
E
N
T
COUNSEL
Bhupinder Goel
Manoranjan
COUNSEL
Manish Garg
Rakesh Kataria

Petitioner / Applicant

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEERING, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Respondent SIGNATURE BUILDERS PVT. LTD
Court

NAA (National Anti Profiteering Authority)

Date Jun 28, 2019
Order No.

45/2019

TR Citation 2019 (6) TR 1047
Add to Favorites Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

ORDER

1. A Report dated 30.10.2018 was furnished by the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to this Authority, after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts mentioned in the above Report were that the Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering, vide the minutes of its meeting held on 20.06.2018 had forwarded an application dated 08.04.2018 filed by the Applicant No. 1 to the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Applicant No. 1 had stated in his application that the Respondent had resorted to profiteering in respect of supply of construction services related to purchase of Flat No.A5/907 in his project Solera-2 situated at Sector-107, Gurugram, Haryana. The Applicant No. 1 had claimed that as per the Affordable Housing Policy-2013 (AHP) of the Haryana Government, the basic sale price of the above flat in the pre-GST regime....
Download Full Judgement :
29
May
S
M
T
W
T
F
S