https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=72966 Competition law challenge to a state-owned liquor procurement and distribution agency was rejected for want of concrete evidence of anti-competitive conduct. The tribunal accepted that no prima facie case of abuse of dominant position was made out, including no demonstrated harm or loss from alleged unilateral pricing, tender conditions, delayed payments, additional charges, or preference for state-owned brands. It also held that the pricing clause and differential discount structure were commercially justified and did not, on their face, distort market competition or consumer choice. en-us Sun, 24 May 2026 10:46:03 +0530 Sun, 24 May 2026 10:46:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=72966 Competition law challenge to a state-owned liquor procurement and distribution agency was rejected for want of concrete evidence of anti-competitive conduct. The tribunal accepted that no prima facie case of abuse of dominant position was made out, including no demonstrated harm or loss from alleged unilateral pricing, tender conditions, delayed payments, additional charges, or preference for state-owned brands. It also held that the pricing clause and differential discount structure were commercially justified and did not, on their face, distort market competition or consumer choice. News - Sun, 24 May 2026 10:46:03 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=72966