Case Law Details
Sh. Ajay Jagga Vs M/s Bhatia Confectioners (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
1. A Report dated 31.08.2018 was received from the Director-General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) consequent upon a detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules 2017. Vide the Report, the DGAP reported that an application dated 14.12.2017 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti- profiteering under the provisions of Rula 128 Of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 by Applicant No. 1 against Respondent No. 1, whereby Applicant No. 1 had alleged that Respondent No. 1 had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate on “Kiwi Shoe Polish” (hereinafter referred to as impugned product) from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 and had instead increased the base price of the impugned product supplied by him so that there was no reduction in the final price of the item despite the reduction in the rate of tax. In support of his allegation, Applicant No. 1 enclosed with application, a copy of the invoice/bill No. CS-64964 dated 13.12,2017 the in respect of the supply of “Kiwi Shoe Polish” issued by Respondent No. 1.
2 The DGAP, vide his Report dated 31.08.2018, reported that the above application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti- profiteering in its meeting held on 28.02.2018, wherein it was decided to refer the matter to the DGAP, for initiating a detailed investigation to determine whether the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax on the said item had been passed on by the Respondent No. 1 to the applicant No. 1 and other customers. On receipt of the reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, the DGAP observed that the said application was not accompanied by the requisite evidence of profiteering and thus concluded that the allegation of profiteering was not substantiated. Accordingly, a closure Report vide letter F.No D-22011/API/11/2018/1023 dated 11.04.2018 was submitted by the DGAP to this Authority. In response, this Authority, vide its Order No. 2/2018 dated 24.04.2018, directed the DGAP to conduct fresh investigation in the case and submit a detailed and reasoned Report. Thereupon, the DGAP initiated fresh investigation and in that process, sent an email dated 09.05.2018 to Applicant No. 1, seeking additional details/documents available with him to substantiate his allegation. Applicant No. 1, vide email dated 12.05.2018, replied that the Respondent No. 1 had not commensurately reduced the price of the “Kiwi Shoe Polish” and enclosed a of invoice no. CS-64964 dated 13.12.2017 issued by the Respondent as the supporting evidence. Thereafter, the DGAP issued a letter dated 14.05.2018 to Respondent No. 1 asking him to submit the details regarding the pre- GST and post-GST prices charged by him for the supplies of the above item and certain other details required for the investigation.
3. In Respondent No. 1, vida his letter dated 22.05.2018, submitted copies of sample purchase invoices and sales invoices to the DGAP. Based on the information received from him the DGAP issued a Notice to Respondent No. 1 on 18.06.2018 under Rule 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 asking him whether he admitted that he had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to Applicant No. 1 by way of a commensurate reduction in prices in 1he post rate-reduction period and to suo moto determine the quantum of benefit not passed on by him. Besides, Respondent No. 1 was also allowed to inspect the non- confidential evidence/ information received from Applicant No. 1 on any working day from 25.06.2018 tD 27.06.2018, but Respondent No 1 did not avail of this opportunity. Similarly, Applicant No. 1 was also allowed to inspect the non confidential evidence/reply furnished by Respondent No, 1 on any working day from 29.08.2018 to 31.08.2018. Applicant No. 1 also did not avail of the opportunity.
4. The DGAP has reported that Respondent No. 1, vide his reply dated 22.05.2018, submitted that the supply under invoice CS-64964 dated 13,12,2017 was made by him out of the stock he had purchased from Respondent No. 2 on which he had borne GST ©18% and had later sold the same charging GST 18%, and thus, the provisions of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were not attracted in his case.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
