<?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>Prima facie competition threshold failed where allegations of unfair pricing and preferential treatment lacked substantiating market data.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100045</link>
    <description>At the Section 26 prima facie stage, the Commission may close an information where the informant does not place complete and substantiating material. The Tribunal noted that general assertions on unilateral pricing, unfair tender terms, discounts, losses, price distortion and market harm were unsupported by actual data on cost sheets, margins, losses, market exit, price effects or share erosion, so the allegations did not cross the evidentiary threshold for investigation. It also accepted that, in a regulated alcohol market, pricing was linked to taxes, levies and State policy, and that alleged preferential treatment in tendering was not shown by comparative market data to have distorted competition. The closure under Section 26(2) was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 08:27:17 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 08:27:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=903366" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Prima facie competition threshold failed where allegations of unfair pricing and preferential treatment lacked substantiating market data.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100045</link>
      <description>At the Section 26 prima facie stage, the Commission may close an information where the informant does not place complete and substantiating material. The Tribunal noted that general assertions on unilateral pricing, unfair tender terms, discounts, losses, price distortion and market harm were unsupported by actual data on cost sheets, margins, losses, market exit, price effects or share erosion, so the allegations did not cross the evidentiary threshold for investigation. It also accepted that, in a regulated alcohol market, pricing was linked to taxes, levies and State policy, and that alleged preferential treatment in tendering was not shown by comparative market data to have distorted competition. The closure under Section 26(2) was upheld.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Law of Competition</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 08:27:17 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100045</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>