Alleged profiteering post-GST tax reduction dismissed under Section 171 CGST Act

The case involved allegations of profiteering by the Respondent due to a tax rate reduction post-GST implementation. The Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) found that since there was no reduction in the tax rate for the product, the provision regarding passing on the benefit did not apply. The Authority decided that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 was not applicable, leading to the dismissal of the profiteering allegation against the Respondent. The case was closed following this decision.

---

---

Issues:
Allegation of profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of a specific product by not passing on the benefit of tax rate reduction post-GST implementation.

Analysis:
1. The case was referred to the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering based on allegations of profiteering by the Respondent. The Kerala State Screening Committee highlighted two invoices, one pre-GST and one post-GST, to support the claim.
2. The DGAP conducted detailed investigations and reported that the tax rate on the product increased from 2% in the pre-CST era to 5% post-GST. However, the base price of the product remained constant at Rs. 265 in both periods.
3. The DGAP clarified that as per Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, if there is no reduction in the tax rate, the provision regarding passing on the benefit does not apply. Therefore, since there was no reduction in the tax rate for the product, the allegation of profiteering was deemed unsubstantiated.
4. The Authority reviewed the DGAP's report and decided to address the issue of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) which had not been previously considered. Subsequently, the DGAP was instructed to reinvestigate the matter specifically concerning MRP.
5. Upon re-investigation, the DGAP reiterated that the rate of tax increased post-GST, and the base price of the product remained unchanged. The incidence of IGST at 5% post-GST was higher than the pre-GST incidence of CST at 2%, further supporting the conclusion that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 did not apply due to the absence of a tax rate reduction.
6. The final decision by the Authority was based on the absence of any reduction in the tax rate post-GST implementation, leading to the dismissal of the application alleging profiteering by the Respondent. The order was to be communicated to all parties involved, and the case file was to be closed after due process.

---