<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (1) TMI 21 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372856</link>
    <description>The Authority concluded that the Respondent did not contravene Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the post-GST base price increase was attributed to a reduction in discounts unrelated to the tax rate reduction. The Respondent&#039;s actions were deemed not to constitute profiteering, and the application against them was dismissed with no cost implications for either party.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=550406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 21 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372856</link>
      <description>The Authority concluded that the Respondent did not contravene Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the post-GST base price increase was attributed to a reduction in discounts unrelated to the tax rate reduction. The Respondent&#039;s actions were deemed not to constitute profiteering, and the application against them was dismissed with no cost implications for either party.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>