Case Law Details
Rahul Sharma Vs Tanya Enterprises (NAA)
The brief facts of the case are that the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering vide its communication dated 11.03.2019 had requested the DGAP to conduct a detailed investigation as per Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules on the allegation that M/s Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. had not passed on the benefit of tax reduction from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 on “Fogg Deo Fougere BX 150 ml” which was supplied to M/s Big Bazaar, Inderlok on 09.11.2017 under Purchase Order (PO) No. 81149976814 with MRP of Rs. 299/- and on 19.12.2017 under PO No. 8115259654 with the same MRP of Rs. 299/-
After perusal of the DGAP’s Report, this Authority in its meeting held on 25.09.2019 decided to hear the Applicants and the Respondent on 10.2019 and accordingly notice was issued to all the interested parties. A Notice was also issued to the Respondent on 26.09.2019 asking him to reply why the Report dated 24.09.2019 furnished by the DGAP should not be accepted and why his liability for profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 should not be fixed. On the request of the Respondent, the hearing was adjourned to 11.11.2019. None appeared for the Applicants whereas the Respondent was represented by Sh. Rajesh Popli, Proprietor, Smt, Renu Bharara, Accounts Officer, Sh. Sahihe Alam, CA in the hearing.
The Respondent vide his submissions dated 11.11.2019 stated that he was selling two products viz. Deo Fogg Woody (150 ml) and Deo Fogg Fresh Spicy (150 ml) under combo offer between the period January, 2018 to March, 2018 and the basic price of the product was as follows:‑
Before change in rate (i.e. GST Rate 28%) – Rs. 175.19 each (MRP Price Rs. 299)
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
