https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393551 The Respondent was found liable for not passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction to consumers, resulting in a profiteered amount of Rs. 75,08,64,019. The Respondent violated Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 by increasing base prices post-GST reduction without reducing prices for consumers. The DGAP's methodology for calculating profiteering was upheld, and the Respondent was directed to deposit the profiteered amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund with interest. Penalties under Section 171 (3A) apply, and monitoring of compliance was ordered by the Commissioners of CGST/SGST. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393551 The Respondent was found liable for not passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction to consumers, resulting in a profiteered amount of Rs. 75,08,64,019. The Respondent violated Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 by increasing base prices post-GST reduction without reducing prices for consumers. The DGAP's methodology for calculating profiteering was upheld, and the Respondent was directed to deposit the profiteered amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund with interest. Penalties under Section 171 (3A) apply, and monitoring of compliance was ordered by the Commissioners of CGST/SGST. Case-Laws GST Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393551