Case Law Details
Rahul Sharma Vs J. K. Helene Curtis 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 a detailed investigation as per Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules on the allegation that M/s Raymond Ltd. had not passed on the benefit of tax reduction from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 on “After-Shave Lotion Park Avenue Good Morning 50 ml” which was supplied to M/s Big Bazaar, Inderlok (M/s Future Retail Ltd.) on 08.11.2017 under Purchase Order No. 8114997697 with MRP of Rs. 115/-, on 19.12.2017 under Purchase Order No. 8115407972 with the same MRP of Rs. 115/- and on 12.06.2018 under Purchase Order No. 4518098598 again with the same MRP of Rs. 115/-.
Held by NAA:
The Respondent has referred to the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Paraffins Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2012 (282) ELT 33) in his support and claimed that the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus was applicable in the present case which implied that in case the foundation was removed, the superstructure fell. However, as has been held above the Standing Committee has rightly referred the above complaint of the Applicant No. 1 to the DGAP after prima facie having satisfied itself that there was accurate and adequate evidence to refer the allegation of not passing on the benefit of tax reduction by the Respondents within the prescribed period of limitation of 2 months as per the provisions of Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, therefore, the present investigation and the Report dated 24.09.2019 furnished by the DGAP cannot be held to be illegal and hence the law settled in the above case cannot be relied upon. Based on the above findings all the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents have been found to be frivolous and hence the same cannot be accepted. However, these findings shall have no bearing on the other merits of the case which have not been dealt with in this order. The final order in the present proceedings shall be passed separately after hearing the Respondents in detail.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
