- 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
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) has ordered Samsung India to Rs 37.85 lakh for not passing on the benefits of lower goods and services tax (GST) rate to its consumers on products like television sets.The NAA order dated February 27 stated that prices of Samsung India products affected by rate reduction were not reduced, thus violating Section 171(1) of the...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) has ordered Samsung India to Rs 37.85 lakh for not passing on the benefits of lower goods and services tax (GST) rate to its consumers on products like television sets.
The NAA order dated February 27 stated that prices of Samsung India products affected by rate reduction were not reduced, thus violating Section 171(1) of the CGST Act 2017.
The NAA order also stated that that Samsung India had increased prices for appropriating the tax reduction with the intention of denying the benefit to its consumers.
Incidentally the GST Council had reduced rates on LED / LCD TV sets from 28% to 18% on January 1, 2019.
“The NAA directs Commissioners of CGST/ SGST to monitor this order under the supervision of DGAP by ensuring that the amount profiteered by the respondent as ordered by this Authority is deposited in the consumer welfare funds of the central and state governments,” the NAA order said, asking for a compliance report within four months.
Accordingly, the NAA has also issued a show cause notice to Samsung India asking it to submit its reasons regarding why the penalty amount should not be charged.