https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405320 The court found that Respondent No. 1 did not pass on the benefit of the GST rate reduction to customers as required by Section 171 of the CGST Act. The investigation revealed an increase in base prices exceeding the denial of Input Tax Credit, resulting in higher customer payments. The court upheld the methodology used to calculate the profiteered amount and dismissed arguments related to time limits, calculation methodology, ITC withdrawal impact, and separate sales channel calculations. No retrospective penalty was imposed, but Respondent No. 1 was directed to deposit Rs. 78,41,754 in Consumer Welfare Funds and reduce prices accordingly. Compliance monitoring was assigned to CGST/SGST Commissioners. en-us Fri, 12 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:30:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405320 The court found that Respondent No. 1 did not pass on the benefit of the GST rate reduction to customers as required by Section 171 of the CGST Act. The investigation revealed an increase in base prices exceeding the denial of Input Tax Credit, resulting in higher customer payments. The court upheld the methodology used to calculate the profiteered amount and dismissed arguments related to time limits, calculation methodology, ITC withdrawal impact, and separate sales channel calculations. No retrospective penalty was imposed, but Respondent No. 1 was directed to deposit Rs. 78,41,754 in Consumer Welfare Funds and reduce prices accordingly. Compliance monitoring was assigned to CGST/SGST Commissioners. Case-Laws GST Fri, 12 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405320