- 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
- AI
- 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
- AI
- 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 the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to undertake a fresh investigation against L’Oreal India.The development comes, after the DGAP reduced the amount profiteered amount from Rs 216 crore to Rs 186 crore, in its initial report.The NAA stated that DGAP reports cannot be accepted and ordered the DGAP...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) has ordered the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to undertake a fresh investigation against L’Oreal India.
The development comes, after the DGAP reduced the amount profiteered amount from Rs 216 crore to Rs 186 crore, in its initial report.
The NAA stated that DGAP reports cannot be accepted and ordered the DGAP to investigate further about L’Oreal and furnish a fresh report as per Rule 133 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
The NAA has said in its order that the DGAP had not given any reasons for reducing its estimate of profiteering by L’Oreal or for not correcting the amount at its end.
“In the absence of clear cut findings on the issue, this authority cannot pass a reasoned and just order,” the NAA stated, referring to the lack of DGAP’s reasoning.
The NAA also stated that the DGAP has also not explained why the above approach was not applied at the time of preparing the report dated July 2019.