<?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>2021 (1) TMI 127 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402535</link>
    <description>The Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of a tax rate reduction to customers, resulting in profiteering and violation of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The profiteered amount was determined to be Rs. 32,926.36 for the specified period. Although the Respondent was found in violation, penalty proceedings were withdrawn due to the retrospective inapplicability of penalty provisions introduced after the violation occurred. The judgment clarified issues related to profiteering, statutory violations, and penalty applicability under the relevant laws, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of penalty imposition against the Respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=632128" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (1) TMI 127 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402535</link>
      <description>The Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of a tax rate reduction to customers, resulting in profiteering and violation of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The profiteered amount was determined to be Rs. 32,926.36 for the specified period. Although the Respondent was found in violation, penalty proceedings were withdrawn due to the retrospective inapplicability of penalty provisions introduced after the violation occurred. The judgment clarified issues related to profiteering, statutory violations, and penalty applicability under the relevant laws, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of penalty imposition against the Respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402535</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>