GSTAT Orders Profiteering Amount Rs. 13.32 Lakh to Be Deposited in Consumer Welfare Funds:

GSTAT Orders Profiteering Amount Rs. 13.32 Lakh to Be Deposited in Consumer Welfare Funds

Tribunal Rules Against Retrospective Penalty but Enforces Consumer Welfare Fund Contribution

GSTAT Directs Deposit of Rs. 13.32 Lakh in Consumer Welfare Funds

authorMeetu KumaridateMar 3, 2026
Last update on Mar 3, 2026
GSTAT Orders Profiteering Amount Rs. 13.32 Lakh to Be Deposited in Consumer Welfare Funds The Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) conducted an investigation against M/s. A J Enterprises for the period from November 15, 2017, to September 30, 2019. The investigation was triggered to determine if the Respondent had passed on the benefit of GST rate reductions to its customers. The DGAP's report concluded that the Respondent had indeed profiteered by not reducing the prices of its goods commensurate with the tax cuts. The matter was later brought before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) for a final determination on the profiteered amount, interest, and potential penalties.
Sales Tax Bar Urges FM to Reduce High GSTAT Appeal Fees; Highlights Burden on MSMEs and Small Traders
Main Issue: Whether the Respondent is liable to deposit the profiteered amount along with interest, and whether a penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act can be imposed retrospectively for an investigation period ending before the penalty provision came into force. GSTAT's Order: The GST Appellate Tribunal accepted the DGAP's report and directed the Respondent to deposit the profiteered amount. The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum, calculated from June 28, 2019, until the date of deposit. Following statutory requirements, 50% of this amount is to be deposited in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund, with the remaining 50% going to the respective State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Sales Tax Bar Urges FM to Reduce High GSTAT Appeal Fees; Highlights Burden on MSMEs and Small Traders
The Tribunal ruled that the penalty under Section 171(3A) could not be imposed because the provision became effective on January 1, 2020, whereas the investigation period concluded on September 30, 2019. Relying on Vatika Township case, the Tribunal held that penal provisions cannot be applied retrospectively. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157
Up Next

Loading suggestions…