- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
NAA declared Win-Win Appliances guilty of not passing GST rate cut benefits to its customers
NAA declared Win-Win Appliances guilty of not passing GST rate cut benefits to its customers The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) found Win-Win Appliances guilty of not passing GST rate cut benefits to its customers The Kerala State Screening Committee and Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP)/ (applicants) have alleged that M/s Win-Win Appliances (Respondent) did not pass...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
NAA declared Win-Win Appliances guilty of not passing GST rate cut benefits to its customers
The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) found Win-Win Appliances guilty of not passing GST rate cut benefits to its customers
The Kerala State Screening Committee and Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP)/ (applicants) have alleged that M/s Win-Win Appliances (Respondent) did not pass on to its recipients the benefits of reduction in the Goods and Services Tax rate (GST rate) of 15 November 2017 from 28% to 18% in respect of its supplies of "Matchless Plus TTWG Grinder", according to the provisions of Section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
The DGAP reported that the respondent had denied the benefits of GST rate reduction to its recipients amounting to Rs. 1,20,194 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act.
The matter was listed before the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) headed by Chairman Dr. B.N. Sharma. The Chairman held that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of reduction in GST rate from 28% to 18% on the above products and the respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act. No penalty was imposed by the NAA on grounds that there is no penalty provision in existence when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act and hence the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively.
The NAA concluded that the respondent is guilty of not passing the GST rate cut benefits to its customers.