https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310883 NAPA directed reinvestigation by DGAP regarding profiteering in flat purchase case. Authority found non-adherence to six-month period under rule 133 of CGST Rules, 2017, constituting contravention of section 171 of CGST Act. However, citing Delhi HC precedent, NAPA held that the six-month limitation period is directory rather than mandatory since no consequences for non-adherence are prescribed in the Act or rules. Matter remanded to DGAP for reinvestigation under rule 133(4) provisions. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Apr 2025 12:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310883 NAPA directed reinvestigation by DGAP regarding profiteering in flat purchase case. Authority found non-adherence to six-month period under rule 133 of CGST Rules, 2017, constituting contravention of section 171 of CGST Act. However, citing Delhi HC precedent, NAPA held that the six-month limitation period is directory rather than mandatory since no consequences for non-adherence are prescribed in the Act or rules. Matter remanded to DGAP for reinvestigation under rule 133(4) provisions. Case-Laws GST Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310883