https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375112 The case involved an allegation of profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of "Socks" post-GST implementation. The Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering's report found no change in tax rates or base prices pre and post-GST, concluding that the Respondent did not violate Section 171 of the CGST Act, which requires passing on tax rate reductions to consumers. The Kerala Screening Committee failed to support its claim of profiteering, leading to the dismissal of the application alleging profiteering. en-us Mon, 11 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Mar 2025 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375112 The case involved an allegation of profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of "Socks" post-GST implementation. The Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering's report found no change in tax rates or base prices pre and post-GST, concluding that the Respondent did not violate Section 171 of the CGST Act, which requires passing on tax rate reductions to consumers. The Kerala Screening Committee failed to support its claim of profiteering, leading to the dismissal of the application alleging profiteering. Case-Laws GST Mon, 11 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375112