https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395409 The authority found both respondents liable for profiteering by not passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction from 28% to 18% on a specific product. They were directed to deposit the profiteered amounts with interest in Consumer Welfare Funds and faced penalties under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act. The investigation period, methodology for profiteering calculation, and constitutionality of anti-profiteering provisions were upheld, rejecting respondents' arguments. en-us Mon, 11 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2020 10:12:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395409 The authority found both respondents liable for profiteering by not passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction from 28% to 18% on a specific product. They were directed to deposit the profiteered amounts with interest in Consumer Welfare Funds and faced penalties under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act. The investigation period, methodology for profiteering calculation, and constitutionality of anti-profiteering provisions were upheld, rejecting respondents' arguments. Case-Laws GST Mon, 11 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395409