Skip to content

CMA Final · Indirect Tax Laws and Practice · Anti-profiteering

Under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which statement about the notice issued by the Director General of Anti-profiteering before initiating investigation is correct?

Before starting the investigation, the Director General must issue a notice to interested parties describing the goods or services, summarising the facts underlying the allegations, and giving the time limit for furnishing replies. A prima-facie finding by the Standing Committee does not remove this requirement.

  1. AIt must describe the goods or services concerned, summarise the facts on which allegations are based, and state the time limit for repliesCorrect
  2. BIt need only state the name of the supplier and the amount alleged to be profiteered
  3. CIt is issued only after the Authority passes its final order
  4. DIt is not required if the Standing Committee has found prima-facie evidence

Explanation

Rule 129(3) requires, before initiation of investigation, a notice to interested parties containing the description of goods or services, a summary of the statement of facts on which allegations are based, and the time limit for replies. A Standing Committee finding does not dispense with it.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Anti-profiteering shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Anti-profiteeringFree diagnostic mock

More Anti-profiteering questions