https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369649 The case involved an allegation of profiteering against Respondent No. 1 for not passing on tax reduction benefits to customers. Despite investigations and hearings, the evidence did not establish profiteering. The Authority dismissed the application seeking action under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 against the Respondents, deeming it not maintainable. The case was closed, and the order was to be shared with all concerned parties. en-us Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Feb 2025 12:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369649 The case involved an allegation of profiteering against Respondent No. 1 for not passing on tax reduction benefits to customers. Despite investigations and hearings, the evidence did not establish profiteering. The Authority dismissed the application seeking action under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 against the Respondents, deeming it not maintainable. The case was closed, and the order was to be shared with all concerned parties. Case-Laws GST Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369649