GST Library
Subscription
GST News
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

1
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

   186 Results

SHRI JOTBIR SINGH BHALLA vs. SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | Dec 10, 2020)

1. The present Report dated 23.03.2020 has been furnished by the Director General of Anti Profiteering (here-in-after referred to as the DGAP) under Rule 126 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules (CGST) 2017. The brief facts of the case are that the DGAP had received a reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering on 28.06.2019 to conduct a detailed investigation in respect of a complaint filed by Applicant No. 1 before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, stating there...
☗ Construction

SHRI RAVI CHARAYA AND OTHERS vs. HARDCASTLE RESTAURANTS PVT. LTD.


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | Dec 9, 2020)

1. A Report dated 15.06.2018 was received from the Applicant No. 5 i.e. the Director General of Safeguards (DGSG), now re-designated as Director General of Anti-Profiteering (hereinafter referred to as the DGAP) under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case were that the Applicants No. 1 & 2 through their e-mails both dated 23.11.2017 and Applicants No. 3 & 4 vide their e-mails dated 15.11.2017 and 17.11.2017 respectively ha...
☗ Hotel/hospitality/accomodation

SHRI DEVROOP GUHA vs. SIGNATURE GLOBAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | Dec 9, 2020)

1. The present Report dated 28.02.2020 has been received from 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 Applicant No. 1 had filed an application under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of the supply of purchase of Flat No. 7-405 in Tower 7 in Respondent&rsq...
☗ Construction

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
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...

SHRI KUMUDCHANDRA ATMARAM PATEL vs. M/S TTK PRESTIGE LTD.


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | 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 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...

KERALA STATE SCREENING COMMITTEE ON ANTI-PROFITEER.. vs. M/S. TTK PRESTIGE LTD


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | 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...
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

SH. DEEPAK KUMAR KHURANA


(National Anti-Profiteering Authority | Nov 5, 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...
☗ Construction