GST Library
Subscription
GST News
GST Videos
GST Calendar
GST Case Laws
GST Notifications
GST Act / Rules
GST Rates
GST Set-off Calculator
GST Forms
Full Site Search
Classification by CTA
E-way Bill
Finance Bill

GST e-Books
GST Act & Rules
GST Rates Compendium
Classification by CTA

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd.
TM
Free GST updates via...
twitter
8130462634

GST Case Laws

2
Citation
Court
High Court
State
Search by Related Tags
  OR

  OR

  OR
Date (From)
Date (To)
Name of Party
Free-Text Search
Sort By
Text Search option

   31 Results

SH. JAGINI ROHIT


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | Nov 27, 2020)

1. The present Report dated 12.06.2019 has been received from the Director-General of Anti-Profiteering(DGAP) after an investigation in terms of Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the instant case are that a reference was received from the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering on 06.05.2020 recommending that a detailed investigation be conducted in respect of an Application filed by Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering by the Responde...
☗ Entertainment

SHRI M. SRINIVAS AND OTHERS vs. M/S. ELECTRONICS MART INDIA LTD.


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | Nov 26, 2020)

1. The present Report dated 23.12.2019 has been furnished by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 29.03.2019 was filed by the Applicant No. 1, under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 before the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of supply of “Monitors and TVs of screen size up to 32...
☗ Electronic
★ Classification/Supply of Goods
1. A Report dated 03.04.2019 was received from the Applicant No. 3 i.e. the Director-General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the Report were that Applicant No. 1 had filed application before the Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of the input ta...
☗ Construction
★ Input Tax Credit

SH. AJAY KUMAR AND OTHER vs. PIVOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | Nov 4, 2020)

1. The present Report dated 19.06.2019 has been received from the Applicant No. 3 i.e. the Director-General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that vide their applications dated 09.10.2018 and 16.12.2019 filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applicant No. 1 and 2 had alleged profiteering by the ...
☗ Construction
★ Input Tax Credit

SHRI M. SRINIVAS vs. M/S. INFINITY RETAIL LTD.


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | Nov 2, 2020)

1. The present Report dated 23.12.2019, has been furnished by the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director-General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that an application dated 29.03.2019 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, by the Applicant No. 1, alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of “DSLR Cameras&...
☗ Electronic
★ Classification/Supply of Goods

AVANTI PATEL vs. M/S. STARBUCKS COFFEE


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | Oct 28, 2020)

1. The brief facts of the present case are that under Rule 128 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, an application was filed by the Applicant No. 1 against the Respondent before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering alleging that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate on restaurant service when it was reduced from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 without benefit of ITC and he had increased the base prices of the food items sold by h...
☗ Hotel/hospitality/accomodation
★ Classification/Supply of Goods

SH. SHASHANK THAKAR AND OTHERS vs. M/S. ALTON BUILDTECH INDIA PVT. LTD.


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | Oct 16, 2020)

1. A Report dated 14.06.2019 was received from the Applicant No. 6 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the Report were that the Applicant No. 1 to 3 had filed applications before the Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering and the Applicant No. 4 and 5 had filed applications before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rul...
☗ Construction

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL TAX & CENTRAL EXCI.. vs. M/S INOX LEISURE LTD


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | Sep 8, 2020)

1. The present Report dated 31.01.2020 has been furnished by the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director-General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation in line with Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that an application dated 22.05.2019 was filed by the Applicant No. 1 against the Respondent alleging profiteering in respect of supply of 'Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematography f...
☗ Entertainment
1. The present Report dated 26.02.2020 has been received by this Authority from the Applicant No. 2, i.e. the Director-General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation in line with Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that the DGAP has received a reference from the Standing Committee on Anti- Profiteering in respect of an application filed by the Applicant No. 1, under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017...
☗ Entertainment
1. The present Report dated 31.01.2020, has been received from the Applicant No. 3 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that an application was filed before the Karnataka State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering by the Applicant No. 1, alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of Apartment No. Emerald-002, in t...
☗ Construction