https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309889 The NAPA found that the DGAP failed to adequately investigate whether the respondent real estate company passed on input tax credit benefits to recipients under section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the construction project. The DGAP's report was insufficient to determine if profiteering occurred, as the respondent provided inadequate documentation. The case was complicated by the respondent undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, which concluded with NCLT approving a resolution plan. NAPA emphasized its threefold responsibility under section 171 to prevent profiteering, determine profiteered amounts, and ensure benefit pass-through to recipients. The authority restored its previous order and excluded the period from March 2020 to February 2022 for limitation purposes in related proceedings. en-us Thu, 04 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Apr 2025 17:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309889 The NAPA found that the DGAP failed to adequately investigate whether the respondent real estate company passed on input tax credit benefits to recipients under section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the construction project. The DGAP's report was insufficient to determine if profiteering occurred, as the respondent provided inadequate documentation. The case was complicated by the respondent undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, which concluded with NCLT approving a resolution plan. NAPA emphasized its threefold responsibility under section 171 to prevent profiteering, determine profiteered amounts, and ensure benefit pass-through to recipients. The authority restored its previous order and excluded the period from March 2020 to February 2022 for limitation purposes in related proceedings. Case-Laws GST Thu, 04 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309889