<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (1) TMI 1009 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403417</link>
    <description>NAPA held that a multiplex operator with 133 locations violated Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 by not passing on GST rate reduction benefits from 18% to 5% on restaurant services. Despite the rate reduction effective 15.11.2017, the operator increased base prices of 1434 out of 1650 items beyond what was required to offset denial of input tax credit. The profiteered amount was determined as Rs. 3,10,56,939. The operator was directed to deposit this amount equally in Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds with 18% interest within three months. No penalty was imposed as the relevant penal provision was not in force during the violation period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=634038" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (1) TMI 1009 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403417</link>
      <description>NAPA held that a multiplex operator with 133 locations violated Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 by not passing on GST rate reduction benefits from 18% to 5% on restaurant services. Despite the rate reduction effective 15.11.2017, the operator increased base prices of 1434 out of 1650 items beyond what was required to offset denial of input tax credit. The profiteered amount was determined as Rs. 3,10,56,939. The operator was directed to deposit this amount equally in Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds with 18% interest within three months. No penalty was imposed as the relevant penal provision was not in force during the violation period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403417</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>