<?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 (8) TMI 91 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397148</link>
    <description>The Respondent was found to have violated Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 by not reducing prices in line with the GST rate reduction. The profiteered amount of Rs. 1,57,200 was paid by the Respondent along with interest, leading to no penalty imposition. Despite delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the order was eventually issued in compliance with applicable regulations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619142" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 91 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397148</link>
      <description>The Respondent was found to have violated Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 by not reducing prices in line with the GST rate reduction. The profiteered amount of Rs. 1,57,200 was paid by the Respondent along with interest, leading to no penalty imposition. Despite delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the order was eventually issued in compliance with applicable regulations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>