<?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>2022 (5) TMI 1595 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310689</link>
    <description>A reduction in GST rate was required to be passed on by commensurate reduction in the prices and MRPs of the affected SKUs, because the goods were sold as pre-packaged commodities with declared MRPs and the inquiry could not be confined to base prices charged to distributors. The DGAP report was found inadequate for not properly examining whether MRPs were refixed or reduced from the effective date, whether revised stickers or declarations were made on existing stock, whether the reduced GST rate was actually charged, and whether the benefit reached the ultimate consumer. The report was rejected and the matter was remanded for fresh factual verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2025 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=731543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1595 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310689</link>
      <description>A reduction in GST rate was required to be passed on by commensurate reduction in the prices and MRPs of the affected SKUs, because the goods were sold as pre-packaged commodities with declared MRPs and the inquiry could not be confined to base prices charged to distributors. The DGAP report was found inadequate for not properly examining whether MRPs were refixed or reduced from the effective date, whether revised stickers or declarations were made on existing stock, whether the reduced GST rate was actually charged, and whether the benefit reached the ultimate consumer. The report was rejected and the matter was remanded for fresh factual verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310689</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>