https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396877 The Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of tax reduction to customers after the GST rate on restaurant services was reduced. The investigation revealed a profiteered amount of Rs. 7,53,854/- due to the Respondent increasing base prices more than necessary to offset the denial of Input Tax Credit. The Respondent's arguments regarding price revisions, mapping of items, and methodology were dismissed. The Respondent was directed to reduce prices, deposit the profiteered amount in Consumer Welfare Funds, and faced penal action under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017. Compliance was to be ensured by the Commissioners of CGST/SGST Rajasthan. en-us Thu, 16 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396877 The Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of tax reduction to customers after the GST rate on restaurant services was reduced. The investigation revealed a profiteered amount of Rs. 7,53,854/- due to the Respondent increasing base prices more than necessary to offset the denial of Input Tax Credit. The Respondent's arguments regarding price revisions, mapping of items, and methodology were dismissed. The Respondent was directed to reduce prices, deposit the profiteered amount in Consumer Welfare Funds, and faced penal action under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017. Compliance was to be ensured by the Commissioners of CGST/SGST Rajasthan. Case-Laws GST Thu, 16 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396877