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

GST e-Books

GST Domains Sale New

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd
TM
Free Daily GST updates on...
twitter
8882663036

GST Case Laws

2
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
Active Filters:
CGSTACT ✔
Section/Rule - 171 ✔

   219 Results

VISHAL GARG, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEERING.. vs. JMD LIMITED


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | May 13, 2022)

The present Report dated 26.08.2021 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 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 the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 against the Respondent alleging profiteering in respect of construction service supplied by him. The Applicant No. 1 had stated t...
The present Report dated 27.08.2020, was received on 31.08.2020 from the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation under Rule 133(5) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that the DGAP, upon receipt of a reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering, wherein it was alleged by Sh. Vasantbhai Bhikabhai Patel, 202, Shree Shakti Tower, Near Eiffiel Tower, L H Road, Surat- 395006 that the Re...
1. The present Report dated 23.03.2020, had been received from the Applicant no. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation under Rule 129 of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief fact of the case was that a reference was received from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering to conduct a detailed investigation in respect of an application filed by the Applicant No. 1, alleging profiteering in respect of construction s...
1. The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) vide Order dated 26.06.2020 in this matter has given the following order: “25. It is clear from the above narration of the facts that the profiteered amount has been computed by comparing the average pre-rate reduction base prices of the impacted products with the monthly average post- rate reduction base prices in respect of both the tax reductions. The above mathematical methodology adopted by the DGAP to compute the prof...

JAYESH V RATHOD, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEE.. vs. SAVALIYA PROCON


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | May 12, 2022)

1. The present Report dated 29.12.2020 had been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. On receipt of the reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, a Notice under Rule 129 of the Rules was issued by the DGAP on 31.07.2020, calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of Input Tax Credit h...
1. The present Report dated 27.11.2020 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 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 the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 against the Respondent alleging profiteering in respect of construction service supplied by him. The Applicant No. 1 had state...
1. A Report dated 26.11.2020 had been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 filed application before the National Anti- profiteering Authority under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 with respect to supply of “Sevices by way of admission to exhibition of cinematography film...
1. The present Report dated 28.02.2020 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. Briefly stated, a reference was received by the DGAP from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering on 28.06.2019, to conduct a detailed investigation in respect of an application, filed by the Applicant No. 1, alleging profiteering by the Respondent, ...
1. This Report dated 28.10.2020 has been received on 29.10.2020 from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017.The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application alleging that the Respondent has profiteered with respect to supply of “Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematography films”. 2. The Ap...

MEENAKSHI AGRAWAL, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFIT.. vs. S.R. LIFESCIENCES.


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | May 10, 2022)

1. The present Report dated 23.03.2020 has been received from 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 the DGAP received a reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering on 09.10.2019 recommending a detailed investigation against the Respondent in respect of an application filed by the Applicant No. 1 under Rule 128 of the CGST R...