{"id":275358,"date":"2022-10-11T12:00:33","date_gmt":"2022-10-11T06:30:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=275358"},"modified":"2022-10-11T12:00:33","modified_gmt":"2022-10-11T06:30:33","slug":"delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court | Post sale discount given by Loreal India not to qualify as commensurate reduction in prices as required under Section 171 CGST Act, 2017"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Delhi High Court<\/b>: In a case filed by Loreal India Private Limited (petitioner) challenging the order dated 23-06-2022 passed by National Anti-Profiteering Authority (Respondent 2) and the notice dated 01-06-2022 seeking to examining whether there is any profiteering or not, also challenging Section 171<\/a> of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017<\/a>, (CGST Act), Chapter XV of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017<\/a>, (CGST Rules) more particularly, Rules 126, 127 & 133 of the CGST Rules as unconstitutional, ultra vires and violative of Articles 14<\/a>, 19(1)(g)<\/a>, 265<\/a> & 300-A<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>, a Division Bench of Manmohan<\/b> and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, JJ., held that a supplier cannot claim that he has passed on more benefit to one customer therefore he could pass less or no benefit to another customer than the benefit which is actually due to that customer as under Section 171<\/a> CGST Act<\/a>, any benefit of reduction in rate of taxes or benefit of input tax credit on any supply of goods or services can only be by way of commensurate reduction in prices.<\/p>\n

Counsel for petitioner submitted that the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) has no suo moto powers and therefore, the application filed by the Secretary, NAA, to the Standing Committee seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 171<\/a> CGST Act<\/a>, is not a valid initiation of proceedings against the petitioner for examining whether there is any profiteering or not.<\/p>\n

The petitioner further submitted that even though in some products they have not been able to grant commensurate reduction in prices, yet they have tried to pass on the benefit by way of increase in grammage of the product.<\/p>\n

NAA further submitted that the petitioner was only required to pass on the benefit of tax reduction by not increasing his base prices which he has not done and has instead increased them as well as also compelled them to pay additional GST on these excess base prices which they should not have paid.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that Section 171<\/a> CGST Act<\/a> is not a charging or a taxing provision, rather an incidental provision for the purpose of eliminating the cascading effect of taxation on the consumer and any benefit of rate reduction of taxes or input tax credit benefit being passed on to the recipient without the middleman taking advantage of the Governments forgoing their taxes for the end consumer, and thus, is in the nature of a consumer welfare provision and must be liberally construed directed towards furthering consumer and public interest.<\/p>\n

Further, Rule 128 of CGST Rules, 2017<\/a> nowhere prescribes that the applicant who is making the written application\/complaint must also be the recipient of the goods or services, on which commensurate reduction in prices have not taken place. Thus, the Secretary, NAA, would qualify to make an application under Rule 128 CGST Act, which permits ‘any other person’ to make such an application.<\/p>\n

The Court also noted that Section 171<\/a> of CGST Act, 2017<\/a> casts an obligation of every supplier of goods and services\/registered person to pass on the benefit of rate reduction of GST or the benefit of ITC on every supply and not on some supplies. Thus, a supplier cannot claim that he has passed on more benefit to one customer therefore he could pass less or no benefit to another customer than the benefit which is actually due to that customer.<\/p>\n

The Court remarked that when a statute clearly provides for a manner in which something is to be done, and a duty is cast upon the supplier to extend the benefit of rate reduction by way of commensurate reduction in prices, the supplier cannot insist that instead of reducing prices, he will give extra grammage of the product<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The Court held that under Section 171<\/a> of CGST Act<\/a> any benefit of reduction in rate of taxes or benefit of input tax credit on any supply of goods or services can only be by way of commensurate reduction in prices and thus, the post-sale discount does not qualify as commensurate reduction in prices.<\/p>\n

The Court further directed the petitioner to deposit the principal profiteered amount after deducting the GST imposed on the net profiteered amount which has already been deposited by the petitioner with the Department in six equated installments commencing 10-10-2022.<\/p>\n

[Loreal India Private Limited v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3281<\/a>, decided on 06-10-2022<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Mr. Karan Sachdev and Mr. Agrim Arora, Advocates, for the Petitioner;<\/p>\n

Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, Advocate, for the R-1;<\/p>\n

Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue with Mr. Vivek Gurnani and Ms. Niharika Kuchhal, Advocates, for the R-2, 3 & 4\/NAA and DGAP.<\/p>\n\n

*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Loreal India Private Limited (petitioner) challenging the order dated 23-06-2022 passed by <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":268833,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[29698,2543,51386,46893,6241,26374,52315,25604,52316,11091],"class_list":["post-275358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-cgst","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-discount","tag-goods-and-services","tag-gst","tag-input-tax-credit","tag-naa","tag-national-anti-profiteering-authority","tag-reduction-in-prices","tag-taxation"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi High Court | Post sale discount given by Loreal India not to qualify as commensurate reduction in prices as required under Section 171 CGST Act, 2017 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a case filed by Loreal India Private Limited challenging the order dated 23-06-2022 passed by National Anti-Profiteering Authority\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court | Post sale discount given by Loreal India not to qualify as commensurate reduction in prices as required under Section 171 CGST Act, 2017\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a case filed by Loreal India Private Limited challenging the order dated 23-06-2022 passed by National Anti-Profiteering Authority\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-10-11T06:30:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi High Court | Post sale discount given by Loreal India not to qualify as commensurate reduction in prices as required under Section 171 CGST Act, 2017 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-10-11T06:30:33+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"In a case filed by Loreal India Private Limited challenging the order dated 23-06-2022 passed by National Anti-Profiteering Authority\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":888,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi High Court | Post sale discount given by Loreal India not to qualify as commensurate reduction in prices as required under Section 171 CGST Act, 2017\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi High Court | Post sale discount given by Loreal India not to qualify as commensurate reduction in prices as required under Section 171 CGST Act, 2017 | SCC Times","description":"In a case filed by Loreal India Private Limited challenging the order dated 23-06-2022 passed by National Anti-Profiteering Authority","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi High Court | Post sale discount given by Loreal India not to qualify as commensurate reduction in prices as required under Section 171 CGST Act, 2017","og_description":"In a case filed by Loreal India Private Limited challenging the order dated 23-06-2022 passed by National Anti-Profiteering Authority","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-10-11T06:30:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/","name":"Delhi High Court | Post sale discount given by Loreal India not to qualify as commensurate reduction in prices as required under Section 171 CGST Act, 2017 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg","datePublished":"2022-10-11T06:30:33+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"In a case filed by Loreal India Private Limited challenging the order dated 23-06-2022 passed by National Anti-Profiteering Authority","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg","width":1331,"height":888,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/11\/delhi-high-court-post-sale-discount-given-by-loreal-india-not-to-qualify-as-commensurate-reduction-in-prices-as-required-under-section-171-cgst-act-2017\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi High Court | Post sale discount given by Loreal India not to qualify as commensurate reduction in prices as required under Section 171 CGST Act, 2017"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":312557,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/31\/del-hc-upholds-constitutional-validity-gst-anti-profiteering-mechanism-cautions-potential-arbitrary-use-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":275358,"position":0},"title":"Delhi High Court upholds Legitimacy of GST Anti-Profiteering Mechanism with a Cautionary Note on Potential Arbitrary Exercises of Power","author":"Arunima","date":"January 31, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court clarified that there may be cases of arbitrary exercise of power under the anti-profiteering mechanism by enlarging the scope of the proceedings beyond the jurisdiction or on account of not considering the genuine basis of variations in other factors such as cost escalations on account of which the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":211514,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/07\/naa-no-profiteering-where-there-is-neither-any-reduction-in-rate-of-tax-nor-increase-in-per-unit-base-price-of-the-product\/","url_meta":{"origin":275358,"position":1},"title":"NAA | No profiteering where there is neither any reduction in rate of tax nor increase in per unit base price of the product","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 7, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA): The Coram of B.N. Sharma (Chairman), and J.C. Chauhan and R. Bhagyadevi (Technical Members) dismissed an application filed by Kerala State Screening Committee for being devoid of merit. Respondent\u2019s case was referred to the Standing committee on Anti-Profiteering (Standing Committee) by Kerala State Screening Committee alleging\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213066,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/01\/naa-asian-paints-found-not-guilty-of-contravening-s-171-cgst-act-2017\/","url_meta":{"origin":275358,"position":2},"title":"NAA | Asian Paints found “not guilty” of contravening S. 171 CGST Act, 2017","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA): The Quorum of B.N. Sharma, Chairman and J.C. Chauhan, R. Bhagyadevi and Amand Shah, Technical Members, dealt with an application alleging profiteering on the supply of \u201cPaint\u201d by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax of GST. For the above-stated issue,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":209557,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/06\/naa-dominos-pizza-india-operator-found-guilty-of-not-passing-gst-benefit-to-customers-issued-incorrect-invoices-and-illegally-earned-rs-41-42-crores\/","url_meta":{"origin":275358,"position":3},"title":"NAA | Dominos Pizza India operator found guilty of not passing GST benefit to customers \u2013 issued incorrect invoices and illegally earned Rs 41.42 crores","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 6, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA): The coram\u00a0chaired by B.N. Sharma (Chairman) and comprising J.C. Chauhan, R. Bhagyadevi and Amand Shah as technical members found the operator of Domino\u2019s pizza chain in India guilty of offence under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) by illegally\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/NAA.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":233027,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/29\/delhi-high-court-stays-anti-profiteering-penalty-proceedings-against-samsonite-south-asia\/","url_meta":{"origin":275358,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court stays Anti Profiteering Penalty proceedings against Samsonite South Asia","author":"Editor","date":"July 29, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula, JJ., stayed\u00a0 the anti profiteering penalty proceedings against Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. till further orders. The plaintiff had filed the petition, challenging the constitutionality and legality of the National Anti Profiteering Authority as well as Section 171 of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":142731,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/07\/15\/impact-implications-of-gst-on-legal-practitioners-clarification-sought-from-government\/","url_meta":{"origin":275358,"position":5},"title":"Impact & implications of GST on Legal Practitioners: Clarification sought from Government","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"July 15, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Taking note of the fact that the legal practitioners are under a genuine doubt whether they require to get themselves registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (CGST Act), the Delhi Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (DGST Act) and the Integrated Goods and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/275358","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=275358"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/275358\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/268833"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=275358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=275358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=275358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}