Case Law Details
Rahul Sharma Vs Portronics Digital Pvt. Ltd. (NAA)
Central Government, on recommendation of GST Council vide Notification No. 24/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2018 had reduced the GST rate on Power Bank from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019. Therefore, the Respondent is liable to pass on the benefit of the above tax rate reduction to his customers in terms of Section 171 (1) of the above Act. It is also apparent that the DGAP has carried out the present investigation w.e.f. 01.01.2019 to 31.03.2019.
It is also evident that the Respondent has used various channels/segment viz. Retail. Corporate, Distributor, Retail Wazirpur HO, Online, Online Distributor, Online Snapdeal, Online Paytm, Online Flipkart, Online Amazon, Online Shopclues, Online Udaan, Online P.0, LFR, Outlet RT and Online PAR to sell his products. The DGAP has calculated profiteering by comparing the actual invoice-wise base price of particular model of Power Bank sold through channel/segment wise during the period 01.01.2019 to 31.03.2019 with the commensurate \\( price based on the average of the base price of particular Power Bank sold through channel/segment wise during the period 01.12.2018 to 31.12.2018. To arrive at the base prices of the particular model of the product before rate reduction, sales during the period 01.12.2018 to 31.12.2018 had been considered. If the sale of any particular model of the product/item was not found during that period then, in that case, the sales of that particular model of the product/item during previous months in a sequential manner beginning from November, 2018 had been considered to arrive at the base price of that product/item. Since the sales of all models of the product were not found during the period 01.12.2018 to 31.12.2018, therefore, the sales of that particular model of the product during the month of November, 2018 had been considered. The DGAP has thus calculated the profiteered amount on each particular model of product/item i.e. Power Bank. The mathematical methodology employed by the DGAP to compute the profiteered amount is correct, appropriate, reasonable and in consonance with the provisions of Section 171 (1) and the same has not been challenged by the Respondent.
Further, this Authority takes note of the fact that the Respondent has not submitted any objections against the allegations made in the DGAP’s Report dated 09.11.2020. Therefore this Authority does not find any basis to differ from the findings of the DGAP that the Respondent had indeed contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
