Ritika Vohra Vs Jay Cee Chemists Pvt Ltd (NAA)
NAA held that Jay Cee Chemists Pvt Ltd did not pass on the benefit of exemption of GST on Sanitary Napkin’s amounting to Rs. 2048 to Customers.
Applicant No. 1 alleged that Jay Cee Chemists Pvt Ltd did not pass on the benefit of exemption of GST on Sanitary Napkin’s, vide Notification No. 19/2018 Central Tax (Rate) Dated 26.07.2018, by way of commensurate redaction in price, in terms of Section 171 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, Notification No. 19/2018 Central Tax (Rate) Dated 26.07.2018.
The Authority determines that the Respondent have profiteered by an amount of Rs. 2096:- as has been computed in Annexure – 21 of the DGAP report for exemption of GST w.e.f. 27.07.2018 and had not been passed on to his Recipients by way of commensurate reduction in micas of “Sanitary Napkins” during the period of investigation i.e. 27.07.2018 to 31.10.2020. Further. since the recipients of the benefit, as determined. other than the Applicant, are not identifiable, the Respondent is directed to deposit an amount of its. 2,094/- in two equal parts of Rs. 1047/-each in the Central Consumer Weill–ire Find and the Uttar Pradesh Consumer Wei ran.: Fund as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (e) of the CGST Rules 2017. along with interest payable ® 18% to be calculated from the dates on which the above amount was realized by the Respondent from, his recipients till the date of its deposit in the said fund. The Respondent is also directed to whim/pass on the benefit of Rs. 1.78 along with interest @18% as prescribed to the Applicant.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
1. The present Report dated 02.09.2021 had been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the DGAP (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 12901 of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case were that an application was tiled before the Standing Committee on Anti- profiteering. under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1 alleging that the Respondent did not pass on the benefit of exemption of GST on Sanitary Napkin’s, vide Notification No. 19/2018 Central Tax (Rate) Dated 26.07.2018, by way of commensurate redaction in price, in terms of Section 171 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, Notification No. 19/2018 Central Tax (Rate) Dated 26.07.2018.
2. The DGAP in its report dated 02.09.2021, inter-alia, has stated that:
i. The Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering examined the. application filed by the Applicant No. I in its meeting held on 19.082020. the minutes of which were received in DGAP on 15.10.2020. whereby it was decided to forward the same to the DGAP to conduct a detailed investigation in the matter. Accordingly. investigation was initiated to collect evidence necessary to determine whether the benefit of exemption of GST had been passed on by the Respondent to the Applicant No. 1 in respect of supply of Sanitary Napkins.
ii. After receipt of the reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, a Notice under Rule 129 of the Rules was issued by the DGAP on 09.11.2020 calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of exemption of GST w.e.f. 27.07.2018 had not been passed on to his recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices of sanitary napkins and if so, to suo-moto determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply to the notice as well as furnish all documents in support of his reply. The Respondent was also allowed to inspect the relied upon non-confidential evidence information which fanned the basis of the investigation between 30.11.2020 and 01.12.2020. The Respondent had not availed the said opportunity. The Applicant No. I was also given opportunity to inspect the non- confidential documents/reply furnished by the Respondent on 26.03.2021, which was not availed by the Applicant No. 1. The Applicant No. 1 requested vide email dated 21.04.2021 for another opportunity or inspection, hence the Applicant No. 1 was again granted an opportunity to inspect the Respondent’s non-confidential documents on 18.06.2021. However, the Applicant did not avail of this opportunity as well.
iii. The period covered by the current investigation was from 27.07.2018 to 31.10.2020.
iv. The time limit to complete the investigation was 14.04.2021. However. due to force majeure caused in the light of COVID-19 pandemic, the investigation could not be completed on or before the above date. As per Hon’ble Supreme Court Orders in. Sun-Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 in cases where the limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding had expired during the period between 13.03.2020 till 14:03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining. all persons shall have had a limitation period or 90 days from 13.012021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021. was greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. The above relief had been extended and the period froth 14.03.2021 till funnel’ orders shall also stand excluded in computing the limitation ‘period as per the limit Supreme Court Order dated 27.04.2021.
v. In response to the Notice dated 09.11.2020 and subsequent reminders, the Respondent submitted his reply vide e-mails/letters dated 27.11.2020. 11.01.2021, 17.01.2021, 23.02.2021 10.03.2021, 04.04.2021, 14.04.2021, 28.06.2021, 14.07.2021, 20.07.2021, 03.07.2021, 18.08.2021 and 5.08.2021. The detailed submissions of the Respondent to the DGAP have been summed up below wherein, inter-alia, It was stated that:-
a) The “Stayfree Sanitary Napkin” as sold to the Applicant No. 1 (MRP Rs. 155/-) was purchased vide Invoice No. JJGST700409 dated 13.07.2017 by paying 12% GST. Accordingly Respondent’s billing system charged the same and deposited in Government Exchequer.
b) The purchase details are as below:-
