- 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 found Dev Snacks Cheriyela guilty of wrongfully charging GST on unregistered brand
NAA found Dev Snacks Cheriyela guilty of wrongfully charging GST on unregistered brand The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) let off the company without imposing penalty due to lack of provision to punish the guilty with retrospective effect. The Kerala State Screening Committee and the Director-General of Anti- Profiteering (applicants) have alleged that M/s Dev Snacks...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
NAA found Dev Snacks Cheriyela guilty of wrongfully charging GST on unregistered brand
The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) let off the company without imposing penalty due to lack of provision to punish the guilty with retrospective effect.
The Kerala State Screening Committee and the Director-General of Anti- Profiteering (applicants) have alleged that M/s Dev Snacks Cheriyela (respondent) had not passed the benefits of reduction in Goods and Services Tax (GST) rates from 27 November 2017 from 12 per cent to 5 per cent regarding his supplies related to snacks according to the provisions of Section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (CGST Act).
According to the report of the Director-General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) the respondent had denied the benefit of GST rate reduction to his recipients for the period of 27 November 2017 to 31 December 2017. The DGAP contended that the respondent was indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act.
The matter was initiated before the NAA, the Authority headed by the Chairman, Dr B.N. Sharma held that the respondent had wrongfully charged five per cent GST on his unregistered brand "Dev Snacks" from his buyers. It held that the respondent is liable to violate the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The NAA on 8 January 2021 stated, "Since, no penalty provisions were in existence for the period 27 November 2017 to 31 December 2017, when the respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively." Hence, the NAA did not impose any penalty on the respondent.