Home      Free WhatsApp Updates      Services      Subscription Plans
🔒 Login    
Subscription Plans   
Taxreply tweets
GST News
GST Calender New
About GST Library
E-Books
Subscription Plans
GST Case Laws / Advance Rulings ✓
GST Notifications / Circulars
GST Act / Rules
GST Act / Rules (Amendments)
GST Rates
Classification (Chapter Wise)
Classification (Search Tool)
GST Set-off Calculator
Full Site Search
National Anti-Profiteering Authority
GST Forms   
E-way Bill
Finance Bill
GST Amendment Statistics
GST Case Laws
3,665 cases mapped to 13,553 taggings
Citation
Court
State
Search by Related Tags
  OR

  OR

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

   180 Results

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...

Nov 27, 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...

Nov 26, 2020  

1. The first investigation Report dated 05.04.2019 in the present case was received from the Applicant 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 were that the Applicant had alleged that the Respondents had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in...

Nov 23, 2020  

1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 2 (here- in-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 11.01.2019, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicant No. 1 and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of rate reduction to the above Applicant as well as other Customers as per the provisions of S...

Nov 18, 2020  

1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 2 (here-in-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 05.12.2018, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicant No. 1 and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of rate reduction to his Customers as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 20...

Nov 18, 2020  

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...

Nov 13, 2020  

1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 2 (here­in-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 25.02.2019. furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicant No. 1 and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit in respect of the flat purchased by him in the “Laurel Heigh...

Nov 5, 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 ...

Nov 4, 2020  

1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 2 (here-in-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 28.11.2018, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicant No. 1 and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional Input tax Credit (ITC) to the above Applicant as well as other home buyers as per...

Nov 3, 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&...

Nov 2, 2020