Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Raj & Company (NAA)
Appeal Number : Case No. 93/2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/12/2020
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 Raj & Company (NAA)

1. The brief facts of the present case are that the DGAP vide his Report dated 08.08.2018, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to the customers by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the product “Gamier Nat Shade 3” as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Vide his above Report the DGAP had also submitted that the Respondent had denied the benefit of rate reduction to the customers amounting to Rs. 3,43,109/-, pertaining to the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2018 and had thus indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act.

2. This Authority after careful consideration of the Report dated 08.08.2018 had issued notice dated 16.08.2018 to the Respondent to show cause why the Report furnished by the DGAP should not be accepted and his liability for violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) should not be fixed. After hearing both the parties this Authority vide its Order No. 25/2018 dated 27.12.2018 had determined the profiteered amount as Rs. 3,43,109/- as per the provisions of Section 171 (2) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 pertaining to the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2018 and also held the Respondent in violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1).

3. It was also held that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of rate reduction to the customers between the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2018 and therefore, he had apparently committed an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence, he was liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above Section.

4. The Respondent was issued notice dated 02.01.2019 asking him to explain why the penalty mentioned in Section 122 of the CGST Act,2017 read with Rule133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.

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