https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422373 The HC dismissed a petition challenging the anti-profiteering authority's jurisdiction to conduct suo moto investigations under Rule 133 of CGST Rules, 2017. The court held that Section 171 of CGST Act aligns with anti-competitive provisions, rejecting petitioner's distinction arguments. The authority's notice dated 10.07.2020 based on DGAP report was upheld. Petitioner was directed to respond within three weeks and appear before the authority. While jurisdiction was decided against petitioner, all other issues remain open for de novo hearing on merits. en-us Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 15:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422373 The HC dismissed a petition challenging the anti-profiteering authority's jurisdiction to conduct suo moto investigations under Rule 133 of CGST Rules, 2017. The court held that Section 171 of CGST Act aligns with anti-competitive provisions, rejecting petitioner's distinction arguments. The authority's notice dated 10.07.2020 based on DGAP report was upheld. Petitioner was directed to respond within three weeks and appear before the authority. While jurisdiction was decided against petitioner, all other issues remain open for de novo hearing on merits. Case-Laws GST Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422373