Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Price parallelism alone cannot establish a cartel u/s 3(3)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. Evidence of parallel pricing must be supplemented with "plus factors" demonstrating conscious conduct rather than independent business decisions. In the present case, the limited evidence of exchange of calls between sugar mills and the industry association is insufficient to establish a contravention. No case of violation can be made out against any party, and the matters are directed to be closed forthwith. The order does not qualify for confidential treatment u/s 57 of the Act.
Price parallelism alone cannot establish a cartel u/s 3(3)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. Evidence of parallel pricing must be supplemented with "plus factors" demonstrating conscious conduct rather than independent business decisions. In the present case, the limited evidence of exchange of calls between sugar mills and the industry association is insufficient to establish a contravention. No case of violation can be made out against any party, and the matters are directed to be closed forthwith. The order does not qualify for confidential treatment u/s 57 of the Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.