The GST Appellate Tribunal Delhi in the case of DGAP held that the respondent cinema’s reliance on state-fixed ticket caps does not absolve it of liability for not passing on GST rate reduction benefits to consumers, reaffirming that maintenance charges are also part of the taxable value. Profiteered sums and limited interest were directed to be deposited as per law.
The GST Appellate Tribunal Delhi in the case of DGAP held that the respondent, a hotel service provider, profiteered by not passing the benefit of GST rate reduction on hotel accommodation service and that inflationary pricing due to COVID-19 and …
The GSTAT Delhi in the case of DGAP held that once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT under the IBC, 2016, all claims and dues not included in the resolution plan stand extinguished, and consequently, the Resolution Applicant cannot be held liable for unquantified ITC benefits not passed on by the previous entity under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The anti-profiteering proceedings against Puma Realtors Pvt Ltd were therefore closed.
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) Delhi in DGAP , held that the provision for imposition of 18% interest on the anti-profiteering amount under Rule 133(3)(c) of the CGST Rules applies prospectively only to cases arising after June 28, 2019, and is not applicable retrospectively to profiteering occurring between July and October 2018; thus, while the profiteered amount of Rs. 6,88,770/- was confirmed, no interest or penalty was imposed.
With reduced GST rates on several items coming into effect, the Congress on Monday (September 22, 2025) said the “limited” reform comes eight years too late and a “big question mark” remains on whether the benefits of tax reduction will be passed on to consumers.
Assessee should deposit profiteered amount as it had not passed benefit of reduction in GST: CCI
The govt is not reviving anti-profiteering provisions under Section 171 of the GST law, even as it implements one of the largest arounds of tax rate cuts since GST’s rollout in 2017.
GSTAT in DGAP vs. Raj & Co., order dated August 18, 2025 held that the Respondent was guilty of not passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction on cosmetics products to the ultimate consumers and directed deposit of Rs. 3.31 Lakhs along with 18% interest into the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 171 of the CGST Act.
With an anticipated GST rate cut on the horizon, a key concern is how to prevent businesses from pocketing the benefits instead of passing them on to consumers. This issue is complicated by a notification that limits the concern authority from taking up new anti-profiteering cases.
THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY UNDER CGST IN THE CASE OF VIVEK GUPTA V/s Maheshwari Infratech Pvt. Ltd. , decided on 30-9-2022
