https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377937 The Authority reviewed the case involving alleged profiteering on the supply of Vitrified Tiles Super Nano Plus and found that the Respondent did not contravene Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Despite a GST rate reduction, the per unit taxable amount remained unchanged, indicating the benefit was passed on. Subsequent investigations also supported this conclusion, leading to the dismissal of the profiteering allegation. The final order dated 11.12.2018 confirmed no violation and directed the case closure, distributing the order to all relevant parties. en-us Wed, 03 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 09:02:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377937 The Authority reviewed the case involving alleged profiteering on the supply of Vitrified Tiles Super Nano Plus and found that the Respondent did not contravene Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Despite a GST rate reduction, the per unit taxable amount remained unchanged, indicating the benefit was passed on. Subsequent investigations also supported this conclusion, leading to the dismissal of the profiteering allegation. The final order dated 11.12.2018 confirmed no violation and directed the case closure, distributing the order to all relevant parties. Case-Laws GST Wed, 03 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377937