https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393040 The court found that the Respondent did not pass on the benefit of reduced GST rates to recipients for Samsung 80 CM (32 inches) HD ready LED TVs, profiteering by an amount of Rs. 466.11 per item sold. The Respondent's argument on being an intermediary supplier was rejected, and the methodology used by DGAP was deemed logical. The court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act, ordering the Respondent to reduce prices, deposit the profiteered amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund, and face potential penalties for non-compliance. Compliance monitoring was mandated by CGST/SGST Commissioners under DGAP supervision. en-us Thu, 27 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393040 The court found that the Respondent did not pass on the benefit of reduced GST rates to recipients for Samsung 80 CM (32 inches) HD ready LED TVs, profiteering by an amount of Rs. 466.11 per item sold. The Respondent's argument on being an intermediary supplier was rejected, and the methodology used by DGAP was deemed logical. The court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the CGST Act, ordering the Respondent to reduce prices, deposit the profiteered amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund, and face potential penalties for non-compliance. Compliance monitoring was mandated by CGST/SGST Commissioners under DGAP supervision. Case-Laws GST Thu, 27 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393040