Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to his customers and resorted to profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus committed an offence under section 171 (3A) of the above Act and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty.

Anti-Profiteering — The Applicant No. 1 had alleged in his application that the respondent had increased the price of the flat after the introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax   Credit (ITC) by way of commensurate reduction in the price in respect   of supply of construction service to him related to the purchase of Flat  No. C1308, Tower-C, in the Respondent’s project “Nikoo Homes II”,  situated in Bhartiya City, Chokkanahalli, Yelahanka, Bengaluru Karnataka.  Since, the respondent denied benefit of ITC to his customers and resorted to profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and hus committed an offence under section 171 (3A) of the above Act and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under the above Section. — Prasanth Nandulamattam, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. Bhartiya City Developers Pvt. Ltd. [2019] 17 TAXLOK.COM 042 (NAPA)