15 (3) (a) – TaxcodeIN

The absence of a prescribed methodology for computing the profiteering amount does not render the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 unenforceable | There is no time limit fixed for the calculation of the profiteered amount | The pendency of the case challenging the constitutional validity of Section 171 before the Supreme Court by itself will not in the absence of the order of Stay would anyway affect the jurisdiction of the GSTAT to decide the case of alleged profiteering – Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Shree Sai Kripa Marketing – GSTAT Principal Bench

February 26, 2026

Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

The absence of a prescribed methodology for computing the profiteering amount does not render the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 unenforceable | There is no time limit fixed for the calculation of the profiteered amount | The pendency of the case challenging the constitutional validity of Section 171 before the Supreme Court by itself will not in the absence of the order of Stay would anyway affect the jurisdiction of the GSTAT to decide the case of alleged profiteering – Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) Vs. Shree Sai Kripa Marketing – GSTAT Principal Bench Read Post »