Case Law Details
Sweety Agarwal Vs Tata play Limited (NAA)
The present report dated 06.08.2021 has been furnished by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, on the basis of application filed by the Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering in respect of DTH (Direct to flume) Service supplied by the Respondent vide subscription ID No. 1088222136 in respect of payment of half yearly/annual subscription charges. The Applicant No. 1 alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the commensurate benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to her which was available to the Respondent on implementation of GST w.e.f 01.07.2017. in terms of Section 171 of die CGST Act. 2017.
The Authority has carefully considered the Reports tiled by the DGAP, all the submissions and the documents placed on record. and the arguments advanced by the Respondent during the hearing. It is clear from the plain reading of Section 171(1) that it duds with two situations:- one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second pertaining to the passing on the benefit of the ITC. On the issue of reduction in the tax rate, it is apparent from the DGAP’s Report that there has been no reduction in the rate of lax in the post PST period; hence the only issue to be examined is as to whether there was any net benefit of ITC with the introduction of GST. It is observed from the report that on the basis of the bifurcated information of turn over submitted by the Respondent vide email dated 20.04.2021 for the period April, 200 to January, 2019 and details of ITC submitted by the Respondent vide email dated 26.04.2021 roe the period April, 2016 to January, 2019 specific to the supply of DTH (Broadcasting) services and the details of the credit of VAT/SAD) foregone, ITC availed by him pre GST, the percentage of benefit and thereby the amount of benefit consequent to the introduction of GST, during the post-GST (June, 2017 to January, 2019) period was calculated and has been furnished in Table-‘A’ of the Report and amounted to Rs. 4,50,18,07,258/- and the state-wise bifurcation of the profiteered amount has been furnished in the DGAP’s Report in Table – ‘B’.
Fur the reasons mentioned herein above. the Authority finds no reason to differ from the above-detailed computation of profiteered amount in the DGAP’s Report or the methodology adopted. The Authority finds that the Respondent has profiteered by an amount of Rs. 4,50,18,07,258/- during the period of investigation i.e. 01.07.2017 to 31.01.2019 from his subscribers/customers including the subscription accorded to Shri Sumit Garg and/or Applicant No. 1.
The Authority is in agreement with the assertion of the DGAP that, in the instant case on the basis of the submissions made by the Applicant No.1, as per the provisions of law relating to anti profiteering under the CGST Act, 2017 and Rules made thereunder and the responsibilities cast on this Authority by the said statutory provisions, that the Applicant No. 1 is an interested party in this case for the purposes of alleging profiteering by the Respondent as a supplier, however, as in this case the Applicant no.1 is not it direct subscriber of the Respondent and is representative of interests of one Shri Sumit Garg, therefore the Authority– finds it in consonance with the law to– order the deposit of the profiteered amount in respect of the said Applicant also along with till other subscribers in the Consumer Welfare funds as envisaged in Rule of 133(3)(e) of CGST Rules, 2017 for the benefit of all consumers.
