TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GSG) now Director General Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 01.01.2018 was filed by the Applicant No. 1 before the Standing Committee constituted under Rule 123 (1) of the above Rules alleging that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST in restaurant service, when he had purchased "6 Hara Bhara Kabab Sub" (here-in-after referred to as the product). It was also alleged that the Respondent had increased the base price of the product from Rs. 130/- to Rs. 145/- when the GST was reduced from 18% to 5%. Thus it was further alleged that the Respondent had ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observed that ITC amounting to Rs. 13,01 ,759/- was available to the Respondent during the period from July, 2017 to November, 2017 which came to approximately 1 1.80% of the taxable value of the service amounting to Rs. 1,10,29,612/- supplied during the same period but when the tax was reduced from 18% to 5%, the said ITC was not available to the Respondent. The DGAP has further stated that the analysis of the invoice-wise outward taxable supplies for the period w.e.f. 15.1 1.2017 to 28.02.2018 revealed that the Respondent had increased the base prices ranging from 6% to 17% of the different items supplied as a part of restaurant service to make good the loss of ITC post GST rate reduction. He has also submitted that the pre and post GST ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly equivalent to the denial of ITC to the extent of 11.80%, such increase in the base price was commensurate with the denial of ITC. He has further contended that in anticipation of reduction in the rate of GST and denial of ITC w.e.f. 15.11.2017 the Respondent had increased the base price of certain products and collected excess amount of Rs. 452/- on 14.11.2017 as a result of which consumers had to pay higher amount in the form of increased base price and 18% GST on such increased price. He had therefore, submitted that the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 had not been violated by the Respondent. 5. The above report was considered by the Authority in it's sitting held on 15.05.2018 and it was decided to hear the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the period before 15.1 1.2017 and the ITC involvement in the pre GST valuation had not been considered relevant. The DGAP has further stated that there were approx. 600 outlet of M/S Subway all over the country and without separately investigating each of them, he could not offer any comments on the procedure followed by M/S Subway in case of all the products. 7. Mr. Smit P. Shah who appeared on behalf of the Respondent on 13th of August 2018, submitted that the amount of Rs. 452/- which was alleged to have been charged from the customers on 14.1 1.2018 in the DGAP's Report was due to the system error in the night of 14.11.2018 and the Respondent had no intention of overcharging. He also submitted that he had increased the rates du....