<?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>2022 (8) TMI 272 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426033</link>
    <description>NAPA determined that a construction service provider profiteered Rs. 74,60,399 by failing to pass on ITC benefits to homebuyers as required under Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017. The respondent was ordered to reduce prices commensurately and return the profiteered amount with 18% interest within three months. However, penalty under Section 171(3A) could not be imposed retrospectively as the provision was inserted after the violation period ended.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Apr 2025 10:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=687241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 272 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426033</link>
      <description>NAPA determined that a construction service provider profiteered Rs. 74,60,399 by failing to pass on ITC benefits to homebuyers as required under Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017. The respondent was ordered to reduce prices commensurately and return the profiteered amount with 18% interest within three months. However, penalty under Section 171(3A) could not be imposed retrospectively as the provision was inserted after the violation period ended.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>