Profiteering for non-passing of benefit of tax rate reduction - commensurate reduction in price under Section 171 - methodology for determination under Rule 126 - principle of audi alteram partem - pan India investigation into alleged contraventions of Section 171 - issue of incorrect invoices and penalty under Section 122 - deposit of unidentifiable profiteered amount in Consumer Welfare FundProfiteering for non-passing of benefit of tax rate reduction - commensurate reduction in price under Section 171 - Whether the respondent resorted to profiteering by not passing on the benefit of reduction in GST rate on specified shades of the product and the quantum of profiteering. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found that GST on the product was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 and, although the respondent continued to charge the earlier retail selling price (RSP), he increased the basic price component contemporaneously so that the RSP inclusive of 18% GST remained unchanged. For one shade (MRP Rs.550) the basic price was raised from Rs.410 to Rs.445 on 15.11.2017, producing profiteering of Rs.41 per unit; on specified units this resulted in total profiteering of Rs.811. For another shade (MRP Rs.575) the basic price was raised from Rs.449 to Rs.487 so that RSP remained Rs.575 inclusive of 18% GST, resulting in profiteering of Rs.45 per unit on identified supplies and an aggregate profiteering of Rs.15,050 for the period. The Authority rejected the respondent's contentions that average pricing, operational cost increases, or pre GST stock holdings absolved him; the statutory requirement is that benefit must be passed to each recipient and not on selective or averaged basis. The Authority therefore computed total profiteering of Rs.15,861, including the amount realised from the complainant. [Paras 17, 18, 22]Respondent found to have profiteered to the extent of Rs. 15,861 by not passing on the GST rate reduction; specific amounts to be refunded or deposited as directed.Methodology for determination under Rule 126 - Whether absence of prescribed methodology under Rule 126 absolved the respondent from liability or invalidated the proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The Authority recorded that methodology and procedure required under Rule 126 had been prescribed by the Authority by notification dated 28.03.2017. Consequently, the respondent's objection that no guidelines existed was untenable. The Authority also clarified that it is not obliged to perform the mathematical calculations for the respondent; the methodology enables computation of commensurate benefit and mandates passing of benefit on each product/recipient. [Paras 20]Objection rejected; prescribed methodology exists and does not absolve respondent of liability.Principle of audi alteram partem - Whether the respondent was denied copy of the complaint or opportunity of hearing, rendering the proceedings invalid. - HELD THAT: - The Standing Committee clarified that two complaints were received; one was returned for insufficient particulars while the second contained requisite details and was forwarded to DGAP. A copy of the second complaint was supplied to the respondent's representative on 06.01.2018 (receipt on record). The DGAP afforded the respondent opportunities to reply and to be heard. The Authority therefore held that the respondent's assertions of non supply of complaint and denial of hearing were not borne out by the record. [Paras 16, 19, 21]Claims of non supply and denial of hearing rejected; principles of natural justice observed.Pan India investigation into alleged contraventions of Section 171 - Whether DGAP/Authority could investigate and determine alleged contraventions on a pan India basis or was limited to the local complaint scope. - HELD THAT: - The Authority held that violations of Section 171, whether local or nationwide, fall within DGAP's jurisdiction and may be investigated. The respondent cannot choose the geographical extent where he will pass on benefit; once an infringement is detected the DGAP may investigate broadly. The Authority therefore rejected the objection that the scope of investigation had been improperly expanded. [Paras 21]Pan India investigation and consideration of all relevant supplies upheld as within jurisdiction.Issue of incorrect invoices and penalty under Section 122 - deposit of unidentifiable profiteered amount in Consumer Welfare Fund - Whether the respondent issued incorrect invoices and is liable to penalty and interest; treatment of unidentifiable recipients' share of profiteering. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found that the respondent had not shown correct basic prices in invoices and had thus committed an offence under Section 122(1)(i) of the CGST Act. Consequently, a show cause notice was directed to be issued to explain why penalty under Section 122 read with Rule 133(3)(d) should not be imposed. The Authority directed reduction of basic prices to specified levels (exclusive of GST), refund of Rs.41 with interest at 18% to the complainant, and directed DGAP to get the balance unidentifiable profiteering (Rs.15,820) deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Centre and concerned State(s) with interest at 18% until payment. Recovery mechanism under the Act was preserved in case of default. [Paras 22, 23]Incorrect invoicing established; show cause notice for penalty to be issued; refund to complainant and deposit of unidentifiable profiteered amount into Consumer Welfare Fund with interest directed.Profiteering for non-passing of benefit of tax rate reduction - Whether the respondent's admission in his submissions that a larger amount might not have been passed on required further investigation. - HELD THAT: - The respondent admitted in his submissions (para 27 of his reply) that a larger notional amount might not have been passed on to individual buyers. The Authority considered this a substantive claim requiring verification. Accordingly, the DGAP was directed to investigate that specific claim and submit a report under Rule 129(6) for the Authority's consideration. [Paras 24]DGAP directed to investigate respondent's admitted claim and report back under Rule 129(6).Final Conclusion: The Authority concluded that the respondent contravened Section 171 by not passing on the GST rate reduction and profiteered to the extent of Rs.15,861; directions were issued for specified price reductions, refund with interest to the complainant, deposit of the balance unidentifiable profiteered amount with interest into the Consumer Welfare Fund, and a show cause notice directed for penalty under Section 122; DGAP to investigate the additional claim raised by the respondent and report back.

Passing on benefit of input tax credit - anti-profiteering under Section 171(1) - commensurate reduction in prices - calculation of profiteering based on ITC-to-taxable-turnover ratio - refund with interest - penalty under Section 122 - monitoring and implementation by State Tax CommissionerAnti-profiteering under Section 171(1) - passing on benefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in prices - Whether the respondent violated the obligation to pass on the benefit of Input Tax Credit to buyers under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. - HELD THAT: - Section 171(1) requires that any benefit of input tax credit or reduction in tax rate be passed to recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices. The Authority found that the respondent admitted availability of ITC after introduction of GST and did not dispute the additional ITC becoming available post-GST. The respondent's contentions that (a) the price could not be reduced because a maximum allotment rate existed under the Policy, (b) increased input costs (notably steel), and (c) tax paid by subcontractors justified retention of the benefit were examined and rejected. The Policy fixed only a maximum price; the respondent himself had offered the maximum rate and there was no contractual escalation clause preventing reduction. The Authority accepted the DGAP's method of comparing ITC as a percentage of taxable turnover pre- and post-GST (1.10% pre-GST; 7.20% post-GST) to establish an additional ITC benefit of 6.10%, and held that this excess ITC was required to be passed on. Consequently the respondent appropriated a concessionary benefit from government tax credit instead of passing it to buyers, contravening Section 171(1). [Paras 31, 32, 33, 34, 35]The respondent violated Section 171(1) by not passing on the benefit of ITC to the buyers.Calculation of profiteering based on ITC-to-taxable-turnover ratio - commensurate reduction in prices - Quantum of profiteering and the method of its calculation for the period up to 28.02.2018. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's comparative approach of computing ITC as a percentage of taxable turnover (pre-GST 1.10% versus post-GST 7.20%), resulting in an additional ITC benefit of 6.10%. Applying 6.1% as the rate of profiteering on base prices (Rs.4,000 per sq. ft. as the basic sale rate offered by the respondent) produced a recalibrated basic rate of Rs.3,756 per sq. ft.; applying the applicable GST rates to the recalibrated rate gave the amount that should have been charged. The difference between amounts actually charged and correctly recalibrated amounts yielded per sq. ft. profiteered sums (Rs.273.28 at 12% and Rs.263.52 at 8%). Using this method for all flats, the Authority determined total profiteering of Rs.8,22,80,998/- for 2,476 flats up to 28.02.2018. The Authority endorsed the DGAP's computations and applied the 6.1% principle consistently across buyer categories. [Paras 28, 36, 37, 38, 39]Profiteering amounted to Rs.8,22,80,998/- for all 2,476 flats (calculated at 6.1% of the base price and reconciled with applicable GST), covering the period up to 28.02.2018.Refund with interest - commensurate reduction in prices - Relief and remedial directions to buyers and manner of implementation. - HELD THAT: - Under Rule 133(3)(a) of the CGST Rules, the Authority directed the respondent to reduce prices or refund the excess amounts to all identifiable buyers (not restricted to complainants) commensurate with the ITC benefit found. The Authority ordered refund or reduction to each buyer as calculated, to be effected at the time of collecting the last installment, along with interest at 18% per annum calculated from the date of receipt of the excess amount by each buyer. The period of investigation was limited to 28.02.2018; any ITC benefit accruing thereafter must also be passed on. Compliance is to be completed within three months from receipt of the order. [Paras 37, 38, 39, 40]Respondent shall pass on the benefit to all buyers by refund or price reduction as calculated, with interest at 18% p.a., within three months; future ITC accruals must also be passed on.Penalty under Section 122 - show cause notice - Whether proceedings for imposition of penalty should be initiated against the respondent. - HELD THAT: - Having concluded that the respondent charged more than he was entitled to and issued incorrect tax invoices, the Authority held that the conduct constituted an offence under Section 122(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, the Authority directed issuance of a show cause notice to the respondent to explain why penalty under Section 122 read with Rule 133(3)(d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed. [Paras 41]A show cause notice shall be issued to the respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122 read with Rule 133(3)(d).Monitoring and implementation by State Tax Commissioner - Supervisory mechanism for ensuring compliance with the Authority's order. - HELD THAT: - The Authority, invoking Rule 136 of the CGST Rules, 2017, directed the Commissioner of State Tax, Haryana to monitor implementation of this order under DGAP supervision and to ensure that the ordered amount is passed on to all buyers. The Commissioner is required to submit a compliance report to the Authority within four months of receipt of the order. Copies of the order were directed to be supplied to relevant parties and the Principal Secretary (Town & Country Planning), Govt. of Haryana for necessary action. [Paras 42]Commissioner, State Tax Haryana to monitor compliance under DGAP supervision and file a report within four months.Final Conclusion: The Authority held that the respondent contravened Section 171(1) by not passing on the additional ITC benefit accruing after introduction of GST; applied the DGAP's ITC-to-taxable-turnover methodology to fix additional benefit at 6.10%; determined total profiteering of Rs.8,22,80,998/- for 2,476 flats up to 28.02.2018; directed refund/reduction to all buyers with 18% p.a. interest within three months; ordered initiation of penalty proceedings by issuing a show cause notice; and directed the State Tax Commissioner to monitor compliance and report within four months.

Profiteering / passing on benefit of tax reduction - commensurate reduction in prices - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - input tax credit (ITC) benefit - return of goods and credit note not negating supply - deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund - penalty under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Methodology and Procedure under Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017Profiteering / passing on benefit of tax reduction - commensurate reduction in prices - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the respondent contravened Section 171 by not passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction and thereby indulged in profiteering - HELD THAT: - The Authority found on the admitted material that GST on the product was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 but the respondent continued to charge the same gross selling price. The respondent's admitted purchase and sale prices show an increase in base price after 15.11.2017 which exactly offset the tax reduction, resulting in higher base realisation per unit. The respondent's status as a registered dealer aware of the Notification and of Section 171 imposed on him the obligation to pass on the benefit; reliance on instructions or pricing by the manufacturer did not absolve him. The Authority applied the mathematical adjustment implicit in Section 171 and the Legal Metrology guidance for refixing MRP, and noted that the Authority has prescribed the methodology under Rule 126. On these findings profiteering was established for supplies made during the stated period. [Paras 16, 18]Profiteering under Section 171 is established against the respondent for the period stated; he is directed to reduce sale price and pass on the benefit.Return of goods and credit note not negating supply - profiteering / passing on benefit of tax reduction - Whether the subsequent return of goods and issuance of credit note by the purchaser nullified the original supply so as to defeat a finding of profiteering - HELD THAT: - The Authority held that the supply was completed on 15.11.2017 when tax invoice was issued, delivery made and consideration received; the transaction was reflected in the respondent's November return. A later return of goods and issuance of credit note in December did not render the earlier supply infructuous for the purpose of Section 171. Consequently, the respondent's contention that the returned transaction negated profiteering was rejected as contrary to the facts and statutory scheme. [Paras 17]Return of goods and issuance of credit note did not negate the original supply for the purposes of Section 171; the contention is rejected.Input tax credit (ITC) benefit - deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund - profiteering / passing on benefit of tax reduction - Whether recovery by the manufacturer of excess ITC from stockists or subsequent deposit in the Consumer Welfare Fund absolves the respondent of liability for profiteering - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that even if the manufacturer (HUL) recovered excess ITC from its stockists or deposited amounts in the Consumer Welfare Fund, such subsequent transactions do not absolve a registered supplier who issued incorrect invoices and realised excess amounts equal to the tax reduction. The obligation to pass on the benefit arises at the point of supply; later adjustments between manufacturer and stockists do not cure the respondent's failure to pass on benefit to consumers. The DGAP was directed to verify any deposits made by HUL and ensure balance amounts and interest are recovered from the respondent if not covered. [Paras 20, 23]Recovery or deposit by the manufacturer does not absolve the respondent; he remains liable for the determined profiteered amounts or interest as directed.Penalty under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - profiteering / passing on benefit of tax reduction - Whether penalty proceedings should be initiated against the respondent for issuing incorrect invoices and denying the benefit of tax reduction - HELD THAT: - Having found that the respondent knowingly issued invoices with an enhanced base price equal to the tax reduction and thereby deprived customers of the statutory benefit, the Authority concluded that his conduct was contumacious and dishonest and attracted the penal provision in Section 122(1) for issuing incorrect or false invoices. The Authority proposed imposition of penalty under Section 122 read with Rule 133(d) but afforded the respondent a show-cause opportunity before imposing penalty. [Paras 24, 25]Penalty is proposed under Section 122(1) read with Rule 133(d); respondent is given notice to show cause why penalty should not be imposed.Profiteering / passing on benefit of tax reduction - interest on amounts not passed on - deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund - Quantification and remedial directions in respect of the profiteered amount - HELD THAT: - The Authority quantified profiteering based on DGAP's computation and admissions: profiteering of Rs. 184 determined for a specific invoice to the applicant which is to be returned with interest at 18% from the date noted; and an amount of Rs. 5,50,186 (excluding the Rs. 184) determined for supplies to other, non-identifiable recipients which is to be deposited with interest at 18% from the first of the subsequent month in which profiteering occurred. The DGAP is directed to verify any corresponding deposits by HUL and recover any shortfall or outstanding interest from the respondent; amounts for non-identifiable recipients are to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund as per Rule 133(c). The respondent must pay or deposit ordered amounts within three months or face recovery measures. [Paras 23, 26]Profiteered amounts are determined and directed to be returned or deposited with interest; DGAP to ensure recovery/verification and the respondent must comply within three months.Final Conclusion: The Authority held that the respondent contravened Section 171 by failing to pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction w.e.f. 15.11.2017, quantified the profiteered amounts for identified and non identifiable recipients, directed reduction of sale price and refund/deposit with interest, required DGAP verification of any deposits made by the manufacturer, and proposed penalty proceedings under Section 122(1) while granting the respondent an opportunity to show cause.

Anti-profiteering - violation of Section 171 (anti-profiteering) of the CGST Act, 2017 - refund of excess tax collected - e-commerce marketplace liability - application of reduced GST rate on supply - withdrawal of commercial discount and profiteering - duty to ensure refund by marketplaceAnti-profiteering - application of reduced GST rate on supply - Whether the Supplier resorted to profiteering by charging a higher GST rate at the time of booking and failing to reduce the base price when the GST rate was reduced at the time of supply. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the tax invoices dated 07.11.2017 and 29.11.2017 and concluded that the Supplier's base price remained unchanged (Rs. 11,993.75/- as recorded at booking and at supply). The earlier invoice showed GST charged at 28% on the cum-tax price with a discount of Rs. 500/-, while the subsequent invoice applied the reduced GST rate of 18% on the same base price. Since the Supplier did not increase the base price after the GST rate change and charged GST at the correct prevailing rate on supply, there was no appropriation of excess tax or increase in base price constituting profiteering under the statutory anti-profiteering provisions. The Authority therefore found that the allegation of profiteering against the Supplier was not established. [Paras 7]No profiteering was committed by the Supplier; allegation under Section 171 is not established.E-commerce marketplace liability - refund of excess tax collected - duty to ensure refund by marketplace - Whether the Respondent (marketplace) can be held liable under the anti profiteering provisions for excess GST charged by sellers on its platform and whether it bears responsibility for refund to buyers. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found on record that the Respondent functioned as a marketplace platform charging commission and was not the supplier/manufacturer of the Almirah. The Supplier, not the Respondent, issued the invoices and executed the supply, and the Supplier refunded the excess tax amount (Rs. 700/-) to the Applicant through the Respondent. Given the Respondent's role as intermediary and that the refund was effected by the Supplier, the Respondent could not be held directly accountable for contravention of Section 171. However, noting systemic instances (7,254 orders) where GST charged at booking exceeded the rate at supply, the Authority directed the Respondent to ensure refunds are made without delay in the interest of buyers. [Paras 8]The Respondent is not liable as the supplier under Section 171; supplier refunded the excess tax; Respondent directed to ensure timely refund in other affected cases.Withdrawal of commercial discount and profiteering - Whether the Supplier's withdrawal of a previously offered discount at the time of supply amounted to profiteering under the anti profiteering law. - HELD THAT: - The Authority considered the nature of the Rs. 500/- discount offered at booking and withdrawn at supply and found that the discount was given out of the Supplier's profit margin and did not form part of the base price. Consequently, the withdrawal of that commercial discount did not result in an increase of the base price or appropriation of tax benefit and therefore did not constitute profiteering under Section 171 of the Act. [Paras 9]Withdrawal of the commercial discount does not amount to profiteering; Supplier not guilty under Section 171 on this ground.Final Conclusion: The Authority dismissed the application: the Supplier did not resort to profiteering as the base price remained unchanged and correct GST rates were applied, the marketplace operator (Respondent) was not the supplier and cannot be held liable under Section 171 though it is directed to ensure refunds where excess GST was collected, and the withdrawal of the commercial discount did not constitute profiteering; the application is consequently not maintainable and stands dismissed.

No contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - application treated as withdrawn - point of taxation-advance receipt - works contract-supply and installation - no double taxation (tax on tax) where pre-GST levy correctly charged)Works contract-supply and installation - point of taxation-advance receipt - no double taxation (tax on tax) where pre-GST levy correctly charged) - no contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the Respondent committed anti-profiteering by charging GST on the full value of material used in the second lift after having earlier charged Service Tax on advance and thereby causing double taxation. - HELD THAT: - The DGSG found and the Authority accepted that the contract for the lifts constituted a works contract and that an advance payment had attracted Service Tax by invoice dated 28-06-2017. The installation was completed after the GST regime commenced and invoices dated 27-07-2017 correctly charged the prevailing GST on the supply as leviable under the CGST Act. The Authority noted the statutory position that supplies under contracts entered before the appointed day may attract GST subject to exclusions where tax had been leviable under the erstwhile law; however, on the facts the Service Tax was properly charged on the advance and GST was properly charged after installation. The applicant has not disputed the earlier Service Tax invoice and has acknowledged, after subsequent clarifications, that the invoices raised by the Respondent were correct. On these findings no impermissible tax-on-tax charging was established and therefore no contravention of the anti-profiteering provision was made out.The claim of anti-profiteering in respect of the second lift is without substance and no violation of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 is established.Application treated as withdrawn - no contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the Applicant's representation should be treated as withdrawn and the proceedings closed. - HELD THAT: - The Applicant informed the DGSG by letter dated 28-03-2018 and communicated to the Authority on 14-05-2018 that having received clarifications on the CGST provisions he no longer pursued his earlier grievance and requested withdrawal of the application. The Authority took these admissions into account and, having accepted the DGSG report recommending closure, found no ground to continue proceedings.The application is to be treated as withdrawn and the proceedings are dropped; the DGSG report is accepted.Final Conclusion: The Authority accepts the DGSG report, treats the applicant's representation as withdrawn, finds no contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, and orders closure of the proceedings.

Anti-profiteering - Benefit of input tax credit - Passing on of ITC under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Net benefit of ITC - GST applicability on branded Basmati ricePassing on of ITC under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Net benefit of ITC - Anti-profiteering - Whether the Respondent denied to pass on benefit of input tax credit to consumers in respect of India Gate Basmati Rice, thereby contravening Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined DGSG's report and the respondent's GSTR-3B returns for September, October and November 2017. The returns and computations showed that the ITC available to the respondent as a percentage of taxable turnover ranged between 2.69% and 3%, whereas the GST on outward supplies was 5%, necessitating payment of the balance tax in cash. Consequently, there was no net benefit of ITC available to be passed on to consumers. The Authority also noted that the GST incidence on the product increased from Nil to 5% with effect from 22.09.2017, and that the respondent had increased the MRP contemporaneously in the backdrop of a materially higher purchase price of paddy (a dominant component of cost). The respondent produced invoices and explained that raw material costs rose substantially in 2017 and that market forces constrained price adjustments; the increase in MRP (from Rs. 540 to Rs. 585 as recorded) was attributable to higher input costs rather than retention of an ITC benefit. Applying the statutory test under Section 171, the Authority found no evidentiary basis for concluding that any ITC benefit accrued and was withheld from consumers, and thus no contravention of the anti-profiteering provision was established. [Paras 3, 4, 6, 7]The application alleging denial of ITC benefit is dismissed for want of substance as there was no net benefit of ITC to the Respondent to be passed on, and hence no violation of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.Final Conclusion: The application is dismissed. The Authority found that the ITC available to the Respondent during the relevant months was insufficient to discharge the output GST liability, there was no net benefit of ITC to pass on to consumers, and the increase in MRP was attributable to higher raw material costs rather than anti-profiteering; accordingly no contravention of Section 171 is made out.

Commensurate reduction in prices - passage of benefit of tax reduction - substantial reduction in rate of tax - input tax credit - anti-profiteering - Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017Commensurate reduction in prices - passage of benefit of tax reduction - substantial reduction in rate of tax - anti-profiteering - Whether the reduction in the rate of tax after GST implementation was substantial in the present case and whether the benefit of such reduction was passed on to the applicant by way of commensurate reduction in price. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGSG's factual determination that the pre-GST tax incidence on the model purchased by the applicant was approximately 31.254% and that post-GST the applicable tax (CGST+SGST+Cess) was 29%, resulting in a reduction of just over 2%. The DGSG's computations comparing pre- and post-GST composition of basic price, duties/cess, freight, insurance and dealer's margin (summarised in Tables A and B of the report) show that the ex-showroom price charged to the applicant (post-GST) correctly reflected the basic components and GST @29%. The DGSG found, and the Authority concurred, that the respondent charged an ex-showroom price of Rs. 8,98,750/- on delivery (11.07.2017) for the base-colour car and that a benefit of Rs. 10,550/- (excluding Rs. 4,000/- reduction due to change of colour) was passed on to the applicant reflecting the reduction in tax incidence. The Authority also noted that the applicant inspected the respondent's submissions and, by letter dated 16.02.2018, expressed satisfaction with the reply and requested closure. On these findings of fact and arithmetic, the Authority concluded that there was no contravention of the obligation to pass on the benefit of tax reduction. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 15]The reduction in tax rate was not substantial (only about 2%) and the respondent passed on the benefit of the reduced tax rate to the applicant by way of a commensurate reduction in price.Input tax credit - Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether any additional benefit on account of input tax credit (ITC) was required to be passed on to the applicant over and above the price reduction already recognised. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that the applicant did not originally raise an ITC issue in his complaint; it was mentioned only after receipt of the DGSG report. The Authority explained the ITC-based scheme of GST and accepted the DGSG's calculation that the benefit of Rs. 10,550/- passed to the applicant already inclusive of ITC effects as reflected in the comparative computation. On that basis the Authority held that the applicant had misunderstood Section 171 and the DGSG's report, and that no separate or additional ITC amount was payable to the applicant. [Paras 12, 16, 17]No additional benefit on account of input tax credit is required to be paid; the amount already passed on includes the ITC effect.Final Conclusion: On the facts and computations recorded by the DGSG and accepted by the Authority, the respondent did not contravene Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017; the application alleging profiteering is dismissed.