- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Rs 462 Crore Penalty Demand on Hindustan Lever Stayed by Delhi High Court
The demand of Rs 462 crore made on Hindustan Unilever Ltd. by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority has been stayed by the Delhi High Court. The National Anti-Profiteering Authority claimed that the consumer goods’ major failed to pass on the benefits of lower goods and service tax rate.However, the Authority was directed by the court to not take any coercive action or continue...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The demand of Rs 462 crore made on Hindustan Unilever Ltd. by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority has been stayed by the Delhi High Court. The National Anti-Profiteering Authority claimed that the consumer goods’ major failed to pass on the benefits of lower goods and service tax rate.
However, the Authority was directed by the court to not take any coercive action or continue penalty proceedings against HUL till it finally determined the matter.
The court asked HUL to deposit Rs 90 crore in two installments, i.e., Rs 50 crore by March 15 and Rs 40 crore by May 15, to the Consumer Welfare Fund. HUL profiteered Rs 419.67 crore due to sales realization following an increase in base prices after a GST rate cut in two slabs—from 28 percent to 18 percent and 18 percent to 12 percent, the Authority had ruled in December 2018.
The Authority also accused HUL of availing transition credit of Rs 76.06 crore, which wasn’t passed to consumers by reducing prices.