Case Law Details
Raveendra Reddy Vs MYK Laticrete India Pvt Ltd. (NAA)
1. The present report dated 264)2.2021 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed Investigation under Rule 129(6) of the CGST Rules. 2017 The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules. 2017 and alleged that the Respondent. i.e. M/s MYK Laticrete India Pvt, Ltd., had resorted to profiteering in respect of supply of the products manufactured and sold by the Respondent, where the applicable GST rate was @18% w.e.f. 01.07.2017 compared to total pre-GST tax rate applicable i.e. Excise duty @12.5% and VAT @14.5%. The Applicant No. 1 also alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction of rate of lax to the consumers by way of commensurate reduction in base price of the products manufactured and sold by him as stipulated in Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. In the DGAPS Report dated 26 02.2021. it was inter-alia submitted that:-
(i) On receipt of the reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, a Notice under Rule 129 of the Rules was issued by the Director General of Anti-profiteering on 01 07.2020 calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of rate reduction and additional ITC available. had not been passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction In price and if so, 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. Vide the said Notice. the Respondent was also given an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidences/information which formed the basis of the said Notice, during the period 13 07.2020 to 15.07.2020. However, the Respondent did not avail of the said opportunity. The Authorised Representative of the Respondent requested to provide a copy of the complaint filed by the Applicant No. I. However, the same was not provided to the Respondent as details sought were held confidential by the Applicant No. 1
(ii) Vide letter dated 07 02 2021. the Respondent had submitted that the details being supplied by the Respondent must not be shared with any other party and kept confidential in terms of Rule 130 of the CGST Rules. 2017. The period covered by the current investigation was from 01.07 2017 to 30.06.2020.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
