https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=64975 Profiteering - construction services - The registration and approval of the projects and receipt of the payments had taken place in the post-GST regime and hence, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC which could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC. On this basis, the DGAP has reported that the Respondent had neither benefited from additional ITC nor had there been a reduction in the tax rate in the post-GST period and therefore it did not qualify to be a case of profiteering - The instant case does not fall under the ambit of the Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. - NAPA en-us Thu, 04 Aug 2022 14:26:34 +0530 Thu, 04 Aug 2022 14:26:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=64975 Profiteering - construction services - The registration and approval of the projects and receipt of the payments had taken place in the post-GST regime and hence, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC which could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC. On this basis, the DGAP has reported that the Respondent had neither benefited from additional ITC nor had there been a reduction in the tax rate in the post-GST period and therefore it did not qualify to be a case of profiteering - The instant case does not fall under the ambit of the Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. - NAPA Highlights GST Thu, 04 Aug 2022 14:26:34 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=64975