171 (2)

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Bengal Emami Housing Ltd. – GSTAT, Principal Bench

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Bengal Emami Housing Ltd. – GSTAT, Principal Bench Read Post »

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. MM Construction – GSTAT, Principal Bench

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. MM Construction – GSTAT, Principal Bench Read Post »

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. PRL Developers – GSTAT, Principal Bench

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. PRL Developers – GSTAT, Principal Bench Read Post »

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Anuhar Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – GSTAT, Principal Bench

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Anuhar Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – GSTAT, Principal Bench Read Post »

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Merit Magnum Construction (Formerly Vimal Builders) – GSTAT, Principal Bench

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Merit Magnum Construction (Formerly Vimal Builders) – GSTAT, Principal Bench Read Post »

Tata Projects Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Gauhati High Court

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

Tata Projects Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Gauhati High Court Read Post »

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Townpark Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. – GSTAT Principal Bench

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Townpark Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. – GSTAT Principal Bench Read Post »

Where the supplier, despite reduction of GST on FMCG goods from 28% to 18%, did not pass on the benefit by commensurate price reduction and instead disputed only the methodology, profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act was established – Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. – GSTAT Principal Bench

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

Where the supplier, despite reduction of GST on FMCG goods from 28% to 18%, did not pass on the benefit by commensurate price reduction and instead disputed only the methodology, profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act was established – Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. – GSTAT Principal Bench Read Post »

In case of reduction of GST rates, non-reduction of MPR/ price cannot be sought to be justified on the ground that the quantity has been increased or that there was some scheme which justifies the increase in price – Sharma Trading Company Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Delhi High Court

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

In case of reduction of GST rates, non-reduction of MPR/ price cannot be sought to be justified on the ground that the quantity has been increased or that there was some scheme which justifies the increase in price – Sharma Trading Company Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Theco India Pvt. Ltd. – GSTAT Principal Bench

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Theco India Pvt. Ltd. – GSTAT Principal Bench Read Post »

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Raj & Co. – GSTAT Principal Bench

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Raj & Co. – GSTAT Principal Bench Read Post »

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Urban Essence (Subway Franchisee) – GSTAT Principal Bench

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Urban Essence (Subway Franchisee) – GSTAT Principal Bench Read Post »

The time limit provided for furnishing of report by DGAP is directory in nature and not mandatory | Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 is widely worded and does not limit the scope of examination to only goods and services in respect of which a complaint is received | The scope of the DGAP’s powers is very wide and is not limited to the goods or services in relation to which a Complaint is received – Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Delhi High Court

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

The time limit provided for furnishing of report by DGAP is directory in nature and not mandatory | Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 is widely worded and does not limit the scope of examination to only goods and services in respect of which a complaint is received | The scope of the DGAP’s powers is very wide and is not limited to the goods or services in relation to which a Complaint is received – Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top