GSTAT directed refund of ₹2.67 lakh profiteering with 18% interest, accepted revised DGAP computation, and held no penalty under Section 171(3A).
GSTAT Cuttack held no additional Section 112 pre-deposit was required where the earlier deposit exceeded the pre-deposit on the reduced demand.
GSTAT issued notice in a penalty-only appeal and deferred the pre-deposit issue, directing the Revenue to file counters before considering admission.
GSTAT upheld ITC profiteering findings under Section 171, ordered refund with 18% interest, and held Section 171(3A) penalty inapplicable to pre-2020 contraventions.
GSTAT held that retaining the same ticket prices after GST reductions amounted to profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act. The Tribunal directed deposit of ₹8.99 lakh with interest after finding that consumers were denied the benefit of lower tax rates.
The Tribunal held that procurement strategy, supplier oversight, and sourcing support formed part of a substantive procurement service. Since these services were provided on the supplier’s own account, refund of IGST was denied.
GSTAT accepted the DGAP finding that the ratio of credit availed to purchase value declined after GST implementation. Since no additional ITC benefit accrued, no profiteering was established.
GSTAT held that the retailer failed to pass on the benefit of GST reduction from 28% to 18% through commensurate price cuts. The Tribunal directed deposit of ₹13.61 crore in Consumer Welfare Funds.
The Tribunal held that procurement services provided by a foreign group entity were substantive services rendered on its own account and not intermediary services. As a result, the transaction qualified as import of services and the refund claim was rejected.
GSTAT held that permissions relating to ticket pricing could not override the statutory requirement to pass on GST rate reduction benefits to consumers. The profiteering demand was sustained.
