Case Law Details
Shri M. Srinivas Vs Director General of Anti-Profiteering (NAA)
Respondent has contravened the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, since, the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 for violation of the above provisions has come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020 and the infringement pertains to the period from 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019 and the Respondent has also deposited the profiteered amount alongwith the interest therefore, no penalty is proposed to be imposed on the Respondent.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY
The present Report dated 31.01.2020 has been furnished by 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 case are that a reference was received by the DGAP from the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering on 05.08.2019 to conduct a detailed investigation in respect of an application filed by the Applicant No. 1, under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of supply of “Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films” despite reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01 01.2019. The Applicant No. 1 had alleged that the Respondent had sold tickets of value of Rs. 250/-, Rs. 200/-, Rs. 150/- at the same prices prior to and after the GST rate reduction vide Notification No. 27/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2018. The Applicant No. 1 had also alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019 announced vide Notification No. 27/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2018 and instead, had increased the base prices. The above Applicant had also enclosed the following supporting documents along with his application:-
a. Copy of the APAF-I.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
