https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390040 The case involved allegations of non-passing of Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit post-GST implementation, leading to increased prices of flats. The Respondent was found to have contravened Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 by not reducing basic prices in line with the ITC benefit. The profiteered amount was calculated at Rs. 2,88,43,422, and the Respondent was directed to pass this amount to eligible buyers within three months, along with interest. The Respondent faces penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 for denying ITC benefits to buyers. en-us Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Mar 2025 14:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390040 The case involved allegations of non-passing of Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit post-GST implementation, leading to increased prices of flats. The Respondent was found to have contravened Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 by not reducing basic prices in line with the ITC benefit. The profiteered amount was calculated at Rs. 2,88,43,422, and the Respondent was directed to pass this amount to eligible buyers within three months, along with interest. The Respondent faces penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 for denying ITC benefits to buyers. Case-Laws GST Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390040