Case Law Details
Samit Chakraborty Vs Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)
Facts of the case:
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 detailed investigation as per Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules on the allegation made by the Applicant No. 1 that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of tax reduction from 12% to Nil which was notified vide Notification No.19/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.07 2018, in respect of the supply of “Stayfree Sanitary Napkins” w.e.f. 27.07.2018. The DGAP has also contended that the discount offered by the Respondent was pursuant to a discretionary business strategy wherein the Respondent had willingly cut into his profit margins to offer appropriate discounts time and again. Therefore, for the purpose of determination of profiteering in the instant case, actual selling price or discounted price instead of MRP has been considered in accordance with the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Rules made thereunder.
Held by NAA:
NAA states that the Respondent has vehemently contended that in the present case, as per the Report of the DGAP the application/ complaint was made on 26.12.2018 and it was examined by the Standing Committee in its qv meeting held on 11.03.2019 i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than 2 months from the date of receipt of the application. He has further contended that the time limit of 2 months within which the application was required to be examined was to be strictly adhered to and the same could not be condoned as the word used was “shall” in Rule 128 (1) before the words “within a period of two months. Thus, he has claimed that the belated examination of the application/ complaint by the Standing Committee was barred by limitation of 2 months prescribed under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and hence, such a reference having been received by the DGAP from the Standing Committee could not have been acted upon by him under Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules and therefore, consequential proceedings/investigation conducted by the DGAP were liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It is further revealed from the perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee that the above complaint/application was discussed in detail by the Committee in its meeting held on 11.03.2019 and was forwarded to the DGAP for investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules vide Serial No, 7 of the Annexure-1B. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the above application/complaint was received by the Standing Committee on 23.01.2019 and was discussed and considered by it in its meeting held on 11.03.2019 and was referred for investigation to the DGAP which is well within the prescribed limitation of 2 months in terms of Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Therefore, the objection raised by the Respondent in this regard is incorrect and hence the same cannot be accepted. Based on the above facts it is clear that the Standing Committee has examined the above complaint as per the provisions of Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and hence it has rightly referred the same for detailed investigation to the DGAP in terms of Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules. Therefore, the investigation carried out by the DGAP against the Respondent is perfectly legal and in consonance with Rule 129 of the above Rules. Hence, the present proceedings are legally maintainable against the Respondent.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
