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 apparently committed an offence u/s 171(1) of CGST and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty.

Anti-Profiteering — Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— The Report has been received from the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129. The applicant filed a complaint alleging that he had booked a flat, in the Respondent’s project “Paramount Emotions” at Greater Noida and the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flat, on introduction of the Act. The DGAP submitted that the profiteered amount was realised by the Respondent which included both the profiteered amount @ 2.42% of the turnover (base price) and GST on the profiteered amount. Therefore, this amount was required to be returned to such other eligible recipients. The DGAP has also stated that the Respondent had supplied construction services in the State of Uttar Pradesh only.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats and resorted to profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the Act, and has thus committed an offence under Section 171 (3 A) of the Act, and therefore, liable for imposition of penalty.—Gaurav Gulati, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Vs. Paramount Propbuilt Pvt. Ltd. [2019] 16 TAXLOK.COM 059 (NAPA)