Additional input tax credit benefit must be passed on through price reduction; anti-profiteering computation upheld.

Anti-profiteering proceedings were held maintainable because the complainant qualified as an interested party and the complaint was linked to the subscriber connection and registered contact details. The Authority found that, after GST, additional input tax credit became available where earlier levies were not creditable, and the respondent had not passed that benefit on through commensurate price reduction; profiteering was therefore quantified on the basis of pre-GST and post-GST ITC-to-turnover ratios from the respondent's own records. Constitutional and methodology challenges were rejected, while penalty was held inapplicable retrospectively. The quantified profiteered amount, with interest, was directed to be deposited into the Consumer Welfare Funds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complainant had locus standi as an interested party to trigger anti-profiteering proceedings. (ii) Whether the respondent failed to pass on the benefit of additional input tax credit after GST and had profiteered. (iii) Whether the challenges to the anti-profiteering provisions, the computation method, and the plea against penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the complainant had locus standi as an interested party to trigger anti-profiteering proceedings.

Analysis: The complaint was found to be maintainable because the subscriber connection had in substance been used by the complainant and her family, the complaint email and registered contact details were linked to her, and the amended rules recognised any other person alleging non-passing of benefit as an interested party. The standing committee and the DGAP had therefore validly proceeded on the complaint.

Conclusion: The complainant had locus standi and the proceedings were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent failed to pass on the benefit of additional input tax credit after GST and had profiteered.

Analysis: The pre-GST regime did not permit credit of VAT, CST, entry tax, SAD and similar levies for the respondent's service model, while post-GST such taxes stood subsumed and credit became available under the GST framework. On the respondent's own turnover and credit data, the DGAP compared pre-GST and post-GST ITC-to-turnover ratios and quantified additional benefit of 4.19%, which was treated as not having been passed on by way of commensurate reduction in subscription prices. The Authority accepted the computation and held that the benefit had accrued to subscribers but was retained.

Conclusion: The respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional input tax credit and had profiteered to the extent determined in the report.

Issue (iii): Whether the constitutional objections, objections to the methodology, and the objection to penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The anti-profiteering framework was held to be within legislative competence and not ultra vires. The computation method based on turnover and ITC data was accepted as a reasonable way to quantify commensurate benefit where no single fixed formula could apply. The objection to penalty was accepted only to the extent that the penal provision had come into force later and could not be applied retrospectively for the earlier period.

Conclusion: The constitutional and methodological challenges were rejected, and penalty was held to be inapplicable retrospectively.

Final Conclusion: The respondent was directed to deposit the quantified profiteered amount, with interest, into the Consumer Welfare Funds, and the anti-profiteering proceedings were upheld on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where GST introduces additional input tax credit that was earlier unavailable, the supplier must pass on the resulting benefit to each recipient by commensurate price reduction, and the benefit may be quantified on a reasonable comparison of pre-GST and post-GST credit-to-turnover ratios using the supplier's own records.

---