Case Law Details
Director-General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)
Facts of the case:
The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 23.11.2017 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, by Ms. Neeru Varshney before the Standing Committee vide which she alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST to her when she had purchased “Maybelline FIT Me foundation” (hereinafter referred to as “the Product”) from the Respondent. It was also stated that the GST on the product was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017. The complaint was investigated by the DGAP who vide his Investigation Report dated 28.03.2018 concluded that the basic price of the impugned good was increased by the Respondent as a result of which the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of tax reduction and had thus contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. An amount of Rs. 15,861/- on the product was also established as the profiteered amount.
Held by NAA:
After considering all the Reports filed by the DGAP, submissions of the Respondent including the submissions made during the hearings and other material placed on record. We observe that the Respondent’s submissions dated 18.02.2020 and 24.02.2020 and the accompanying data/information are voluminous and require thorough scrutiny and may entail a revised mathematical computation of the amount of profiteering, notwithstanding the previous clarifications of the DGAP contained in his supplementary reports dated 02.12.2019, 08.01.2020 and 07.02.2020. Therefore, NAA find that the matter needs further investigation based on the complete data that has been submitted by the Respondent only on 18.02.2020 and 24.02.2020. NAA also find that all the contentions and submissions made by the Respondent during the hearings need to be verified and if found substantiated and correct by the DGAP. Needless to say that the discrepancies in Respondent’s submissions, as pointed out by the DGAP during the process of hearings, will also need to be ironed out by the Respondent, which would necessitate the Respondent to fully cooperate with the DGAP during the process of further investigation. In such circumstances, we conclude that the matter needs to be reinvestigated accordingly in the interest of justice. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case and without considering the contentions and submissions of the Respondent at this stage, NAA find it imperative that there is a need for revisiting the investigation and recomputation of the profiteered amount. All the other submissions made by the Respondent will be duly considered after the final computation of the profiteered amount is done after a thorough investigation by the DGAP following provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Given the above facts, this Authority directs the DGAP to reinvestigate the present case as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this Order. under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules 2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
