Case Law Details
Director General Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Satya Enterprises (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
1. The brief facts of the present case are that a reference was made by this Authority to the Director General Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), erstwhile Director General Safeguards, under rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 intimating that certain major manufacturers of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) have not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, by maintaining the prices of their products at the pre-GST rate reduction levels. In this connection, the invoices issued by the Respondent, bearing No. 1429 dated 12.11.2017 and 427 dated 29.11.2017 for supply of ‘Beauty Cream 50 GM’, a product manufactured by M/s Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd. were sent to the DGAP for further action.
2. This reference was sent by the DGAP to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering on 12.03.2018 under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 for examination, which in it’s meeting held on 13.04.2018 had decided to forward this case to the DGAP for investigation.
3. The DGAP after completing the investigation for the period between 15.11.2017 to 31.05.2018 has submitted his Report under Rule 129 (6) of CGST Rules, 2017 on 16.10.2018 to this Authority.
4. The DGAP has stated in his Report that the notice under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017 was issued to the Respondent on 31.05.2018, calling upon him to intimate whether he admitted that the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax had not been passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices and to also suo moto determine the quantum of benefit not passed on and mention the same in his reply. The Respondent was also provided opportunity by the DGAP to inspect the non-confidential record, however, he didn’t avail of this opportunity.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Good information. Your apprehension on electronic assessment in scrutiny cases is not correct. I am a retired corporate lawyer and my case came in limited scrutiny. All submission of documents and exchange of communication with the department happened online without any kind of harassment or visit to IT office.
Hi frend im mahender CG emply per anam 10 Lacks selare ofter dedetion eskaham tax ketna hoga pleas thoda bataenge
Dear CA Animesh Singi,
Very Neutral & Scanned Analysis.
Totally Mind catcher article.
We will expect more like this. Well Done.
VERY WELL and TRUE.
Thanks