TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Respondent directed to deposit Rs. 42,52,370/- in Consumer Welfare Funds for not passing GST rate reduction benefits.</h1> <h3>Sh. Sandeep Puri, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Indirect Taxes, and Customs Versus M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceutical Ltd.</h3> Sh. Sandeep Puri, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Indirect Taxes, and Customs Versus M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceutical Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Alleged non-passing of GST rate reduction benefit.2. Calculation of profiteered amount.3. Respondent's compliance with reduction in MRP.4. Methodology for determining profiteering.5. Legal contentions regarding evidence and penalty.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Alleged Non-Passing of GST Rate Reduction Benefit:The case originated from an application under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, alleging that the Respondent did not pass on the GST rate reduction benefit from 12% to Nil on 'Sanitary Napkin' as per Notification No. 19/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.07.2018. The Standing Committee referred the matter to the DGAP for detailed investigation.2. Calculation of Profiteered Amount:The DGAP's investigation revealed that the Respondent increased the base prices of the product post-GST rate reduction, resulting in a profiteered amount of Rs. 42,52,370/-. The DGAP calculated this by comparing the commensurate base prices (adjusted for loss of ITC at 8.39%) with the actual selling prices during the period from 27.07.2018 to 30.11.2018.3. Respondent's Compliance with Reduction in MRP:The Respondent claimed to have communicated the reduction in MRP to distributors and advertised the same. However, field inspections indicated that old stock was sold at pre-rate reduction MRP. The DGAP's report found that the benefit of GST rate reduction was not passed on to consumers, as the base prices were increased beyond the 8.39% ITC loss adjustment.4. Methodology for Determining Profiteering:The Respondent contested the DGAP's methodology, arguing for a distributor-wise comparison instead of an average price comparison. The Authority upheld the DGAP’s method, stating it was difficult to identify customers with pre and post rate reduction purchases. The DGAP's approach of comparing actual post-rate reduction prices with recalibrated base prices was deemed appropriate.5. Legal Contentions Regarding Evidence and Penalty:The Respondent argued that the evidence should have been made available for cross-examination as per Rule 129 (5) of CGST Rules, 2017, and cited various legal precedents. The Authority dismissed these arguments, stating the facts of the present case were different. The Respondent also claimed that immediate compliance with the rate reduction was impractical, but this was not accepted by the Authority.Conclusion:The Authority determined that the Respondent had profiteered Rs. 42,52,370/- by not passing on the GST rate reduction benefit. The Respondent was directed to deposit this amount with interest in the Consumer Welfare Funds of the Central and State Governments. The Authority also indicated that the Respondent might be liable for penalties under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017, and a Show Cause Notice would be issued accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
