^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

SHREE SAI KRIPA MARKETING vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Delhi High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

MANMOHAN
SANJEEV NARULA

Pet. Counsel

Vineet Bhatia

Res. Counsel

Farman Ali

Ravi Prakash

Mansie Jain

Petitioner / Applicant	SHREE SAI KRIPA MARKETING
Respondent	UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Court	Delhi High Court
State	Delhi
Date	Oct 22, 2020
Order No.	W.P.(C) 8161/2020 & CM APPL.26448/2020
Citation	2020(10) TAXREPLY 3490
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. 2. Present writ petition has been filed primarily challenging the final order dated 11th May, 2020 passed by National Anti-profiteering Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘NAPA’) wherein it has been held that the petitioner profiteered ₹ 38,64,891/- during the period 15th November, 2017 to 31st March, 2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the calculation done by the Director General of Anti-profiteering (DGAP) is factually incorrect as he has calculated the profiteered amount twice. He emphasises that each invoice has been taken twice while calculating the profiteered amount as is evident from the Annexure 34. He also states that the profiteered amount has been computed both in the hands of the principal company as well as in the hands of the petitioner. 4. Issue notice. 5. Mr.Farman Ali, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1. Mr.Ravi Prakash, Advocate acc....