Case Law Details
Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Vs Le Reve Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
The Respondent has also contended that right to trade was a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the right to trade including the right to determine prices and such right which had been granted by the Constitution of India could not be taken away without any explicit authority under the Law. Therefore, this form of price control was a violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The contention of the Respondent is not correct as this Authority or the DGAP has not acted in any way as a price controller or regulator as they don’t have the mandate to regulate the same. The Respondent is free to exercise his right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, as per the provisions of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. He can also fix his prices and profit margins in respect of the supplies made by him. Under Section 171 this Authority has only been mandated to ensure that both the benefits of tax reduction and ITC which are the sacrifices of precious tax revenue made from the kitty of the Central and the State Governments are passed on to the end consumers who bear the burden of the tax. The intent of this provision is the welfare of the consumers who are voiceless, unorganized and vulnerable. This Authority is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that both the above benefits are passed on to the general public as per the provisions of Section 171 read with Rule 127 and 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017. This Authority has nowhere interfered with the business decisions of the Respondent and therefore, there is no violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
ORDER
1. The Present Report dated 09.09.2019, received on 12.09.2019 by this Authority, has been furnished by the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director-General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP). under Rule 129(6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules. 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that a reference was received from the Standing Committee on Anti Profiteering on 27.03.2019 recommending a detailed investigation in respect of an application, originally examined by the Maharashtra State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering. The Applicant No. 1 has filed the application under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules 2017, alleging profiteering in respect of restaurant service supplied by the Respondent (Franchisee of M/s Subway Systems India Pvt. Ltd.). In the application, it was alleged that despite the reduction in the rate of GST from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, the Respondent had not passed on the commensurate benefit since he had increased the base prices of his products. Records showed that the worksheet indicating the extent of profiteering sent by the Screening Committee was also received by the DGAP along with the above recommendation of the Standing Committee on 27.03.2019.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
