Case Law Details
Rahul Sharma Vs McNROE Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)
1. The present Report dated 04.09.2019 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case, are that the DGAP had received a reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering on 27.03.2019 to conduct a detailed investigation in respect of an application dated 30.07.2018 (Annexure-1) filed by the Applicant No. 1 against the Respondent in respect of supply of Deodorant Wild Stone Deo Chrome BX 120 ml’. The Applicant No. 1 had stated that the above product had been shipped by the Respondent to M/s Big Bazar, Inderlok on ‘28.09.2017 under Purchase Order No. 8114615731 with the MRP of Rs 250/-, was again supplied on 04.12.2017 under Purchase Order No. 8115262327 with the MRP of Rs. 250/- and on 16.06.2018 it was again sold under Purchase Order No. 4518224285 with the same MRP of Rs. 250/-. The above Applicant had alleged that the Respondent had not pass on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 which was reduced vide Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and instead, he had increased the base price of Wild Stone Deo Chrome BX 120 ml` Deodorant to maintain the same MRP of Rs. 250/-.
2. The DGAP in his above Report has stated that the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 11.03.2019 had examined the above said reference and it had referred the application to the DGAP for detailed investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 to determine whether the benefits of reduction in the rate of tax or ITC had been passed on by the Respondent to his recipients or not.
3. Thereafter, the DGAP on receipt of the reference from the Standing Committee on Anti Profiteering, had issued a notice to the Respondent on 08.04.2019 (Annexure-2) under Rule 129 (3) of the above Rules, calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of tax reduction had not been passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices and if so, to suo-moto determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same’ n his reply to the notice as well as furnish all the supporting documents. The Respondent was also given an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidence/information furnished by the Applicant No. 1 during the period from 15.04.2019 to 17.04.2019. However, the Respondent did not avail of the said opportunity.
4. The DGAP in his above Report has stated that the period covered by the current investigation was from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019. The time limit to complete the investigation was extended upto 26.09.2019 by this Authority vide its Order dated 19.06.2019 (Annexure-3) in terms of Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
