2018 (10) TMI 1615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....H. J. C. CHAUHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER SMT. R. BHAGYADEVI, TECHNICAL MEMBER SH. AMAND SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER None for the Applicant No. 1. Sh. Manoranjan Singh, Assistant Commissioner for the Applicant No. 2. Sh. Dharmender Gupta, Director (Tax) for the Respondent No. 1 None for the Respondents No. 2 & 3. ORDER 1. This report dated 30.07.2018 has been received from the Applicant No. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reduction of tax by fleecing the poor customers as he was denying them the benefit of reduction and therefore action should be taken against him. 2. In his report dated 30.07.2018, the Applicant No. 2 has stated that vide his emails dated 04.05.2018, 21.05.2018 and 18.07.2018, the Applicant No. 1 was requested to provide the pre and post GST invoices of the products sold by the Respondent No. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at in the absence of any specific evidence of profiteering against a specific supplier of M/s. KFC, he was not in a position to initiate any investigation in the matter. He had further submitted that it was also not practical to initiate investigation against all the franchisees of M/s. KFC, especially when there was no evidence of profiteering. He had therefore recommended that no meaningful inve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....proceedings against him under section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as there was no specific evidence of profiteering against him. He has also stated that the above Applicant had also recommended that no meaningful investigation could be conducted against him. He has further stated that in view of the report submitted by the Applicant No. 1, the allegation of profiteering had not been proved against h....