<?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>2020 (3) TMI 405 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393261</link>
    <description>The respondent was found not liable to pass on any benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the applicant as there was no reduction in the tax rate and no additional ITC benefit availed. Consequently, the respondent did not violate Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, leading to the dismissal of the application alleging profiteering.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606373" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 405 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393261</link>
      <description>The respondent was found not liable to pass on any benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the applicant as there was no reduction in the tax rate and no additional ITC benefit availed. Consequently, the respondent did not violate Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, leading to the dismissal of the application alleging profiteering.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393261</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>