https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309922 NAPA found that respondent construction service provider failed to pass on Input Tax Credit benefits to customers, constituting profiteering under section 171 of CGST Act. Without determining merits, NAPA directed DGAP to re-examine and recalculate profiteering amount under rule 133(4) within three months. Authority noted Delhi HC ruling in Nestle India Ltd. case establishing that six-month limitation period under rule 133 for NAPA orders is directory, not mandatory, as no consequences are prescribed for non-compliance. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Apr 2025 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309922 NAPA found that respondent construction service provider failed to pass on Input Tax Credit benefits to customers, constituting profiteering under section 171 of CGST Act. Without determining merits, NAPA directed DGAP to re-examine and recalculate profiteering amount under rule 133(4) within three months. Authority noted Delhi HC ruling in Nestle India Ltd. case establishing that six-month limitation period under rule 133 for NAPA orders is directory, not mandatory, as no consequences are prescribed for non-compliance. Case-Laws GST Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309922