No Interest/Penalty Applicable Due to Retrospective Interpretation of Rule 133(3)(c): GSTAT Confirms Profiteering of ₹4.57 Lakh

HomeGSTNo Interest/Penalty Applicable Due to Retrospective Interpretation of Rule 133(3)(c): GSTAT Confirms...

No Interest/Penalty Applicable Due to Retrospective Interpretation of Rule 133(3)(c): GSTAT Confirms Profiteering of ₹4.57 Lakh

GST Top Stories

Published on

10/12/2025

By Mariya Paliwala

No Interest/Penalty Applicable Due to Retrospective Interpretation of Rule 133(3)(c): GSTAT Confirms Profiteering of ₹4.57 Lakh

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench, has confirmed that Dange Enterprises profiteered an amount of Rs. 4,57,683 during the period 15 November 2017 to 30 June 2019, directing the firm to deposit the entire sum into the Consumer Welfare Funds (CWF) of the Centre and States. The bench of Justice (Retd.)…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Mariya Paliwala https://www.jurishour.in/

Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

No Interest/Penalty Applicable Due to Retrospective Interpretation of Rule 133(3)(c): GSTAT Confirms Profiteering of ₹4.57 Lakh

Membership Required

Latest articles

Provisional Attachment Can’t Be Exercised Merely On Apprehension Of Future Tax Demand: Rajasthan High Court

Declaring Inflated Stock to Bank for Higher Cash Credit Is ‘Commercial Immorality’: J&K and Ladakh High Court Upholds Income Tax Addition

Restaurants Charging Above MRP for Packaged Beverages Raises Consumer Protection Concerns

Ghaziabad DGGI | Firms Registered in Son’s Name Due to Poor Credit Score: Court Denies Bail In Rs. 60.57 Crore GST Fraud

More like this

Provisional Attachment Can’t Be Exercised Merely On Apprehension Of Future Tax Demand: Rajasthan High Court

Declaring Inflated Stock to Bank for Higher Cash Credit Is ‘Commercial Immorality’: J&K and Ladakh High Court Upholds Income Tax Addition

Restaurants Charging Above MRP for Packaged Beverages Raises Consumer Protection Concerns

About us

Company

Categories