Case Law Details
Sh. Kiran Chimirala & Director General Anti-Profiteering Vs. M/s. Jubilant Food Work Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) passed the order on an email complaint filed by a customer that Jubilant FoodWorks had not reduced the prices of ‘Dominos Stuffed Garlic Bread’ and ‘Medium Veg Pizza’ despite a cut in GST rate from 18 percent to 5 percent.
Jubilant Food has resorted to profiteering by charging more price than what he could have charged by issuing wrong tax invoices. He has further acted in conscious disregard of the obligation which was cast upon him by the law, by issuing incorrect invoices in which the base prices were deliberately enhanced more than what he was entitled to increase due to denial of ITC and thus he had denied the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax granted vide Notification dated 14.11.2017 to his customers. Accordingly he has committed an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, a show cause notice be issued to the Respondent to explain why penalty under the provisions of the above Section should not be imposed on him.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
1. The brief facts of the case are that under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 an application through e-mail dated 29.11.2017 (Annexure-1 of the Report) was filed by the Applicant No. 1 against the Respondent stating that he had purchased 1 SGB Stuffed GB (Garlic Bread) and 1 Med NHT Veg Extrava (Medium Veg Pizza) after paying Rs. 129/- and Rs. 440/- per item respectively vide tax Invoice No. 66065/17/66210 dated 20.10.2017 (Annexure-2 of the Report) from the restaurant being run by the Respondent in Bengaluru. He had also stated that he had purchased the above 2 items again vide tax Invoice No. 66294/17/40249 dated 19.11.2017 (Annexure-3 of the Report) by paying an amount of Rs.139/- and Rs. 485/- respectively from the Respondent. He had alleged that though the Goods & Services Tax (GST) rate on restaurant services was reduced from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, the Respondent had increased the base prices of the above food items and charged the same base prices which he was charging before the rate of tax was reduced and had he maintained the same base prices which he was charging before the tax reduction the consumers would have been benefited but in this case it had not happened. He had therefore alleged that the Respondent had resorted to profiteering and accordingly action should be taken against him. He had also stated that large organisation like the Respondent should be investigated where the prices had been inflated with the reduction in the rate of tax.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
