https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780734 HC affirmed the Single Judge: in a cartelization penalty under s.3(3)(a) read with s.3(1) of the Competition Act, interest on the penalty cannot be levied absent a valid demand notice. Regulation 5's interest accrual is triggered only after a duly served demand notice as required by Regulation 3; automatic or retrospective interest upon expiry of the penalty period is unsupported by the statutory scheme. Consequently the commission lacked jurisdiction to charge interest without issuing Form I demand notice. Impugned judgment affirmed and appeal dismissed. en-us Sat, 01 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Nov 2025 08:35:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780734 HC affirmed the Single Judge: in a cartelization penalty under s.3(3)(a) read with s.3(1) of the Competition Act, interest on the penalty cannot be levied absent a valid demand notice. Regulation 5's interest accrual is triggered only after a duly served demand notice as required by Regulation 3; automatic or retrospective interest upon expiry of the penalty period is unsupported by the statutory scheme. Consequently the commission lacked jurisdiction to charge interest without issuing Form I demand notice. Impugned judgment affirmed and appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Law of Competition Sat, 01 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780734