Advisory and Compliance
GST Case Laws
About GST Library
GST Library Pricing
Free Trial
Full Site Search
GST Act / Rules
GST Act / Rules - Latest Amendments
GST Amendment Statistics
GST Notifications / Circulars Press Releases +
National Anti-Profiteering Authority
GST Case Laws
↳ GST AAR Orders
↳ GST AAAR Orders
↳ GST NAA Orders
GST Forms
E-way Bill
↳ E-way Bill Notificaitons
↳ E-way Bill News
↳ E-way Bill Rules
↳ E-way Bill FAQ
GST Rates for goods and services
GST Set-off Calculator
GST News / Articles
Finance Bill
Found: 83 Result
Court: NAA | State: Not Applicable | Dt: 15-11-2019 | | Order No.56/2019
1. This Report dated 10.12.2018, 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. The brief facts of the case are that vide his application dated 31.05.2018 filed before the Maharashtra State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 (2) of the CGST Rules, 2017 the Applicant No. 1 had alleged profiteering by the Respondent, i
Court: NAA | State: Not Applicable | Dt: 06-11-2019 | | Order No.54/2019
1. The present Report dated 11.06.2019 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. The brief facts of the present case are that the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering vide the minutes of its meeting held on 11.03.2019 had forwarded an application dated 28.02.2019 filed by the Applicant No. 1, to the DGAP. The Applicant No. 1 had st
Court: NAA | State: Not Applicable | Dt: 05-11-2019 | | Order No.53/2019
1. The present Report dated 03.04.2019 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. The brief facts of the case are that vide his application dated 18.07.2018 filed before the Maharashtra State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 (2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applicant No. 1 had alleged profiteering by the Respond
Court: NAA | State: Not Applicable | Dt: 05-11-2019 | | Order No.55/2019
1. This Report dated 21.02.2019, has been received from the Applicant No. 5 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 the Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering, vide the minutes of its meeting held on 20.06.2018 had referred 03 applications filed by the Applicant No. 1, 2 & 3, to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 12
Court: NAA | State: Not Applicable | Dt: 21-10-2019 | | Order No.50/2019
1. The brief facts of the case are that under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, an Application was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering by the Applicant No. 1 against the Respondent alleging that in the bill raised for “Sanitary Napkin” (hereinafter referred to as the product) after exemption of GST from 12% to Nil w.e.f. 27.07.2018 on the above product, vide Notification No. 19/2
Court: NAA | State: Not Applicable | Dt: 21-10-2019 | | Order No.51/2019
1. The brief facts of the case are that under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, an application was filed by the Applicant No. 1 against the Respondent before the Gujarat State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering. The above Applicant had alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of input tax credit by way of commensurate reduction in price in respect of purchase of two flats bearing Nos. H/1/702 and H/1/802 in the Respondent's project &
Court: NAA | State: Not Applicable | Dt: 21-10-2019 | | Order No. 52/2019
1. The present Report dated 22.04.2019, has been received on 23.04.2019 from the Applicant No. 8, 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. Vide the above report, the DGAP has reported that an application dated 04.06.2018 was filed before the Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 by Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering
Court: NAA | State: Not Applicable | Dt: 14-10-2019 | | Order No.49/2019
1. The present Report dated 25.02.2019 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. The brief facts of the present case are that the Karnataka State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering, vide the minutes of its meeting held on 29.06.2018 had forwarded an application dated 31.05.2018 filed by the Applicant No. 1 to the Standing Commi
Court: NAA | State: Not Applicable | Dt: 26-09-2019 | | Order No.47/2019
1. The present Report dated 02.04.2019 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. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed a complaint on 19.06.2018 before the Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017
Court: NAA | State: Not Applicable | Dt: 04-07-2019 | | Order No.46/2019
1. The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 15.02.2019 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of “HP V202b 19.5 inch Computer Monitor” (hereinafter referred to as the product) supplied by him. The Applicant No. 1 alleged that the Respondent had maintained the same selling price of ₹ 6,869/- for t