The Tribunal held that failure to pass on additional ITC benefits constitutes profiteering under Section 171. Although the respondent accepted findings and refunded the remaining amount, liability for interest at 18% persisted as it is compensatory for delayed benefit transfer. However, penalty was not imposed since the violation period preceded enforcement of penalty provisions and the amount was refunded within stipulated time, granting relief under Section 171(3A).

The GSTAT held that the respondent builder derived additional input tax credit benefit post-GST and failed to pass it on to homebuyers, resulting in profiteering. Based on DGAP findings, profiteered amount of Rs.11.91 lakh (including GST) was determined. The respondent accepted liability but contested interest. The Tribunal ruled that passing of benefit is mandatory at the time of supply under Section 171, and failure results in excess collection. Accordingly, refund with 18% interest from date of collection was directed. Penalty under Section 171(3A) was also held applicable. The decision reinforces strict compliance with anti-profiteering provisions.

The petitioner, engaged in the business of iron scrap, challenged an ex-parte assessment order and recovery proceedings initiated by the department for the year 2020–21.

The case relates to a GST fraud matter where the petitioner, accused of availing fake input tax credit of about ?21.89 crore using bogus invoices, was arrested and kept in judicial custody.

The case relates to a GST fraud matter where the petitioner (Accused No.1) was accused of availing fake input tax credit of about ?21.89 crore through bogus invoices. The petitioner was arrested and kept in judicial custody.

The case relates to a GST fraud matter where the applicant was accused of wrongly availing and passing input tax credit without actual supply of goods, involving an amount of around ?42 crore.

This case relates to a cinema theatre which was investigated for not passing the benefit of GST rate reduction to customers.

The matter was heard with arguments presented by both sides, including the counsel for the petitioners and the representative of the Finance and Taxation Department.

The assessee challenged the revenue’s notification dated 28.12.2023 issued under section 168A of the CGST Act extending limitation for proceedings, contending it was ultra vires as it was not issued on the GST Council’s recommendation, and sought protection from recovery including re-credit of Rs. 1,10,23,478 debited from its electronic credit ledger. The Bombay High Court relied on its earlier interim orders in similar petitions (including Shyam Udyog and Rite Equipments) and noted the Gauhati High Court decision quashing the notification (pending in Supreme Court), and proceeded on parity to extend similar interim protection.

In a writ petition, the assessee challenged blocking of its electronic credit ledger/ITC imposed on 16.02.2024, contending that under Rule 86A(3) the restriction automatically ceases after one year and therefore should have lapsed in February 2025. The department acknowledged the one-year limit but argued that registration had been cancelled. The Bombay High Court held the restriction could not continue beyond one year, set aside the blocking as having ceased to operate, and left other ITC-related issues open for lawful proceedings.

The writ petition challenged GST demand proceedings for FY 2018-2019 where ITC was disallowed under section 73 on the basis that GSTR-3B ITC exceeded GSTR-2A. The adjudication order confirmed recovery with interest and penalties and the appellate order largely upheld it. Before the High Court, the assessee contended that the credit had already been reversed and re-claimed under the correct head before the SCN, which the revenue confirmed. The Court quashed both orders and remanded for fresh decision without ruling on merits.

The assessee applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS fearing arrest in a DGGI investigation for alleged fraudulent input tax credit under Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST/CGGST Act, alleging coercive summons and forced deposit. The revenue argued the alleged ITC was only Rs. 1.16 crore and hence the offence was bailable and non-cognizable. The High Court accepted that the amount involved was below Rs. 5 crore and held the apprehension-based anticipatory bail plea lacked merit, rejecting the application.