TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Applicant No. 2, i.e. the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) under Rule129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 stating that a reference dated 28.02.2018 was forwarded by the State level Screening Committee of Maharashtra to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, recommending investigation in respect of an application alleging profiteering by the Respondent in the course of "Courier Service" being provided by him. The application was filed by the Applicant No. 1, under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Applicant No. 1 stated that he had availed courier service supplied by the Respondent on 15.04.2017 and 21.07.2017. The Respondent had charged Rs. 80/- as courier charges (inclusive of Service T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017, the GST rate applicable to courier service had been increased to 18% ad-valorem. The DGAP has also reported that the Respondent had also submitted that there was no reduction of rate of tax leviable on courier services provided by him as a result of GST implementation and that the courier service charges being charged by him from his customers had increased due to factors such as increase in operational costs, establishment expenses and inflation etc. It has also been submitted by the Respondent that there had also not been any additional benefit arising out of any increased availability of input tax credit in his case. 3(a). The DGAP has also reported that the above submissions made by the Respondent were investigated and it was foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 171(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 were not attracted in the present case. The DGAP has further stated that the increase in the courier charges (exclusive of tax) from Rs. 69.50/- to Rs. 80/- could be attributed to the reasons stated in detail at para 3 above, which were not within the scope of this investigation. 4. The above report of the DGAP dated 31.07.2018 was considered by the Authority in its sitting held on 03.08.2018 and it was decided to hear the Applicants and the Respondent on 21 08.2018. However, the Applicant No. 1 and the Respondent failed to appear before the Authority on the stipulated date. The Respondent vide his letter dated 20.08.2018, conveyed that he accepted and agreed with the report of the DG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pies of circulars issued by him to the respective offices/centres for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 evidencing annual increase in his charges. 6. The Authority during the course of the hearing had observed that as per para 8 of the DGAP's Report dated 31.07.2018 the Respondent had been availing the cenvat credit on input services in the pre-GST regime, but after implementation of GST, the Respondent had become eligible to avail input tax credit in respect of services as well as goods in the course of supplying courier service. It was therefore not clear as to how it had been concluded that there was no additional benefit of input tax credit after implementation of GST. Therefore, the Authority vide its order dated 22.10.2018 had sent the D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....courier rate(s) on account of various circumstances including increase in inflation etc, copies of circulars had already been filed with the DGAP 9. We have carefully gone through the entire case record, the DGAP's Reports, the written submissions of the Respondent and all the other material placed on record. The issues to be decided by this Authority in this case are as under:- 1) Whether there was any violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 in this case? 2) If yes then what was the quantum of profiteering? 10. Perusal of Section 171 of the CGST Act shows that it provides as under:- (1). "Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed o....