https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364453 The case addressed whether the amount paid as a "rate difference" to authorized dealers after supplying goods could be considered in determining the 'transaction value' under the CGST Act. The applicant's argument was that the "rate difference" should be included, but the authority found that it did not meet the necessary criteria and could not be considered for valuation purposes. Additionally, the authority concluded that the amount paid as a "rate difference" was not allowable under relevant sections of the CGST Act. The questions posed were answered in the negative, indicating that the "rate difference" payments were not permissible for transaction value calculation or adjustment under the CGST Act. en-us Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364453 The case addressed whether the amount paid as a "rate difference" to authorized dealers after supplying goods could be considered in determining the 'transaction value' under the CGST Act. The applicant's argument was that the "rate difference" should be included, but the authority found that it did not meet the necessary criteria and could not be considered for valuation purposes. Additionally, the authority concluded that the amount paid as a "rate difference" was not allowable under relevant sections of the CGST Act. The questions posed were answered in the negative, indicating that the "rate difference" payments were not permissible for transaction value calculation or adjustment under the CGST Act. Case-Laws GST Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364453