Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Johnson & Johnson Private Limited (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
Appeal Number : Case No. 77/2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 23/12/2019
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Johnson & Johnson Private Limited (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Profiteered amount is determined as Rs. 2,30,40,74,132/- as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the above Rules as has been computed vide Annexure-13 of the Report dated 24.06.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately in terms of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the above Rules. The Respondent is also directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,30,40,74,132/-in the CWF of the Central and the concerned State Government, as the recipients are not identifiable, as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c ) of the above Rules along with 18% interest payable from the dates from which the above amount was realised by the Respondent from his recipients till the date of its deposit.

FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY

1. This Report dated 24.06.2019 has been received from the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are thata reference was received by the DGAP from the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering on 07.01.2019 for conducting investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules against the Respondent in which it was alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST on the products being supplied by him, when the rate of GST was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017.

2. The DGAP had issued Notice under Rule 129 (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on 15.01.2019 to the Respondent, to submit his reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of reduction in the GST rate w.e.f. 15.11.2017, had not been passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices 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 afforded an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidences/information which formed the basis of the said Notice, during the period 21.01.2019 to 23.01.2019, which the Respondent had availed and inspected the documents on 23.01.2019.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031