- 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
- 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
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
NAA finds Lifestyle International guilty of ProfiteeringThe National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) found the M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. guilty of profiteering Ms. Neeru Varshney and Director General of Anti- Profiteering [DGAP] (applicants) alleged that M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. (respondent) had not passed on the benefit of rate reduction to the Applicant and the...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
NAA finds Lifestyle International guilty of Profiteering
The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) found the M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. guilty of profiteering
Ms. Neeru Varshney and Director General of Anti- Profiteering [DGAP] (applicants) alleged that M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. (respondent) had not passed on the benefit of rate reduction to the Applicant and the other customers according to the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (CGST Act).
According to the DGAP, the Respondent had denied the benefit of rate reduction to the customers amounting to Rs. 15,861 for the period with the effect of 15 November 2017 to 31 January 2018. It was also alleged that the respondent had 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 of the NAA noted that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of rate reduction to the Applicant and the other customers as well and hence the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act.
The NAA had not imposed any penalty on the respondent and stated that no penalty provisions were in existence in the period when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act. It further clarified that the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, cannot be imposed on the respondent in a retrospective manner. The said provision of the CGST Act is prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively.