Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti Profiteering Vs TTK Prestige Ltd. (NAA)

Last updated: 01 December 2020
Quick Summary
This document details a case brought before the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) concerning TTK Prestige Ltd. The case was initiated by the Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering and investigated by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering. The ruling was made by a quorum including the Chairman and two Technical Members of the NAA.

Court :
NAA Under CGST Act, 2017

Brief :
Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering, Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department, Tax Tower, Thiruvananthapuram-695002. 2. Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, 2nd Floor, Bhai Vir Singh Sahitya Sadan, Bhai Vir Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001. 

Citation :
Case No. 75/2020 

BEFORE THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY 
UNDER THE CENTRAL GOODS & SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 

Case No. 75/2020 

Date of Institution 15.02.2019 

Date of Order 18.11.2020 

In the matter of: 

1 Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering, Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department, Tax Tower, Thiruvananthapuram-695002. 2. Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, 2nd Floor, Bhai Vir Singh Sahitya Sadan, Bhai Vir Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001. 

Applicants 

Versus 

1. M/s TTK Prestige Ltd., 11th Floor, Brigade Towers, Tower 135, Brigade Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560025. 

Respondent 

Quorum:- 

1 Dr. B. N. Sharma, Chairman 

2 Sh. J. C. Chauhan, Technical Member

3 Sh. Amand Shah. Technical Member 

To know more in details find the attachment file

 

FAQ :

The case number is 75/2020.

The applicants are the Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering and the Director General of Anti-Profiteering.

The respondent is M/s TTK Prestige Ltd.

The order was made on 18.11.2020.

The case is being handled by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

 

Guest
Published in GST
Views : 122
downloaded 259 times
Share Report Abuse
Comments


Recent Judgments :

  1. Partners of a Partnership Firm are personally liable for GST dues of the Firm and bank account of an erstwhile partner can be attached for recovery
  2. Prima facie satisfaction and not conclusive proof of fraud is sufficient to invoke Section 74 of the CGST Act
  3. Show Cause Notice issued to a non-existent amalgamated company is void ab initio and cannot be saved by Section 87 of the CGST Act
  4. SC Landmark Ruling: Mechanical Invocation of Fraud Cannot Extend Limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act
  5. CESTAT Sets Aside ₹60 Crore Service Tax Demand: Best-Judgment Assessment Cannot Be Based on Guesswork
  6. CESTAT: Excess Service Tax Paid by Mistake Is a Deposit — Refund Not Barred by Section 11B Limitation
  7. CESTAT Denies Service Tax Exemption on Rent to Educational Institution for Lack of Evidence
  8. CESTAT Upholds Customs Duty Demand on Undervaluation of Imported Goods Based on Chinese Customs Documents
  9. IGST Paid Under a Wrong Head to be Adjusted Against CGST/SGST Liability Before Any Recovery of Tax Interest or Penalty
  10. Assessee entitled to fresh opportunity of hearing where adjudicating authority ignored reply filed to DRC-01A intimation

View More Judgments »


Trending Online Classes

view all classess

CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members
Pro Member Nayan shettyNayan shettyPro Member sameersameerPro Member AnoopAnoopPro Member DSK TMCDSK TMCPro Member Veerabadrayya TVeerabadrayya T
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals

Browse by Category