Patanjali Ayurveda guilty of Profiteering: NAA

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs. Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd. (NAA)

The Respondent has also claimed that the pricing of products depended on a number of commercial factors. In this connection it would be pertinent to mention that the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act required the Respondent to pass on the benefit of tax reduction to the consumers only and have no mandate to look in to fixing of prices of the products which the Respondent was free to fix. If there was any increase in his costs the Respondent

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.