https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424479 The NAPA determined that a respondent violated Section 171 of the CGST Act by failing to pass on GST rate reduction benefits to customers during November 2017 to December 2018. The Authority rejected all defenses including time limitation, methodology challenges, base price discrepancies, and constitutional validity arguments. It held that benefits must be passed individually per SKU without netting off, luxury products remain subject to anti-profiteering provisions, and profiteered amounts should benefit end consumers through Consumer Welfare Funds. However, penalty under Section 171(3A) could not be imposed retrospectively as the provision was enacted after the violation period. en-us Thu, 23 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Apr 2025 12:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424479 The NAPA determined that a respondent violated Section 171 of the CGST Act by failing to pass on GST rate reduction benefits to customers during November 2017 to December 2018. The Authority rejected all defenses including time limitation, methodology challenges, base price discrepancies, and constitutional validity arguments. It held that benefits must be passed individually per SKU without netting off, luxury products remain subject to anti-profiteering provisions, and profiteered amounts should benefit end consumers through Consumer Welfare Funds. However, penalty under Section 171(3A) could not be imposed retrospectively as the provision was enacted after the violation period. Case-Laws GST Thu, 23 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424479