Case Law Details
Principal Commissioner Vs Inox Leisure Ltd. (NAA)
1. The present Report dated 31.01.2020 has been furnished by the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director-General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation in line with Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that an application dated 22.05.2019 was filed by the Applicant No. 1 against the Respondent alleging profiteering in respect of supply of ‘Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematography films where the price of admission ticket was above one hundred rupees’ despite reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019. In the said application it was alleged by the Applicant No. 1 that the Respondent was selling the movie tickets of value of Rs. 250/-, Rs. 200/- and Rs. 150/- at the same prices after the reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18%, vide Notification No. 27/2018- Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2018 and instead had increased the base prices resulting in non passing on of the benefit of rate reduction to his customers. Copy of the APAF-1 Form, letter dated 22.02.2019 and 22.03.2019 of the Respondent addressed to the Pr. Chief Controller of Accounts. CBIC New Delhi had also been enclosed by the Applicant No. 1 with his complaint.
2. The DGAP has stated in his Report that the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering has examined the above application and on being prima facie satisfied, had referred it to the DGAP to conduct a detailed investigation. On receipt of the aforesaid reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering on 05.08.2019, a notice under Rule 129 (3) of the above Rules was issued by the DGAP on 14.08.2019 calling upon the Respondent to respond as to whether he admitted that he had not passed on the benefit of reduction in GST rate w.e.f. 01.01.2019 to his recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices and if so, to suo moto determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply to the notice as well as to furnish all documents in support of his reply. The Respondent was also allowed to inspect the non-confidential evidence/information which formed the basis of the said notice, during the period from 21.08.2019 to 23.08.2019, which was availed of by the Respondent on 26.08.2019. Further. vide e-mail dated 06.01.2020, the Applicant No. 1 was also afforded an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential documents furnished by the Respondent on 14.01.2020 or 15.01.2020 which was not availed of by the Applicant No. 1.
3. The DGAP has also reported that the period covered by the current investigation was from 01.01.2019 to 31.07.2019 and that the statutory time limit to complete the current investigation was on or before 04.02 2020 in terms of Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
4. The DGAP in his report has stated that in response to the notice dated 14.08.2019, the Respondent submitted his replies vide e-mails/letters dated 26.08.2019, 12.09.2019, 18.09.2019, 30.09.2019, 04 11 2019 and 22.01 2020 and inter-alia stated that:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
