TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....profiteering stating that the Respondent No. 1 had resorted to profiteering in respect of supply of "Dettol HW Liquid Original 900 ml" and had also alleged that the Respondent No. 1 had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, vide Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 and instead, increased the base price of the above product. The above Applicant also stated that the Respondent No. 1 had supplied "Dettol HW Liquid Original 900 ml" to M/s Big Bazar, Inderlok on 07.11.2017 under Purchase Order (PO) No. 8115009618 with the MRP of Rs. 189/- per unit, on 21.12.2017 under PO No. 4514107805 with the MRP of Rs. 209/- and on 20.06.2018 under PO No. 4518283635 with the MRP of Rs. 192/- and thus he had not reduced the price of the above product commensurately. 2. The DGAP has stated in his above Report that the said application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering in its meeting held on 11.03.2019 and upon being prima facie satisfied that the Respondent had contravened the provision of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, it had referred the application to the DGAP for investigation under Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y way of commensurate reduction in prices, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 5. The DGAP has further reported that the Respondent No. 1 did not submit the relevant documents as required for the investigation. Therefore, Summons were issued to Sh. Gaurav Jain, Managing Director of the Respondent No. 1 on 19.06.2019 under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 132 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (Annexure-9), to appear before the Assistant Commissioner, Directorate General of Anti profiteering on 27.06.2019 and to produce the relevant documents. In response to the Summons, Sh. Aditya Gupta, authorised representative on behalf of Sh. Gaurav Jain, vide letter dated 27.06.2019 submitted the required documents in respect of the complained product only. 6. The DGAP has also submitted that a letter dated 27.06.2019 was issued to the Respondent No. 1 to submit the details in respect of all the products which were being supplied by him and which had been affected by the GST rate reduction w.e.f. 15.11.2017. The Respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition No. 7743/2019, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble Court vide its orders dated 19.07.2018 (Annexure-10) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... having an old manufacturing date, which must have been lying on the shelf of the retailer, on which he did not have any control. c. That the pricing to different type of customers was different. The different types of customers were Canteen Stores Department (CSD), Distributors, Direct Modern Trade, E-Commerce Trade, Indirect Modern Trade and Super Stockists. d. That there were cases of return of goods by the customers back to him, for which he had issued credit notes with GST. He requested that the supplies against which credit notes had been issued, should be excluded from the investigation. e. That in respect of the CSD supplies, the prices were negotiated without tax and thereafter taxes prevailing were charged at the time of supply. f. That he had increased the price of the product from Rs. 192/- per unit to Rs. 209/- per unit w.e.f. 01.06.2018 due to commercial reasons such as increase in the rate of Customs Duty, forex rate fluctuations and market forces etc. g. That he had submitted the price trend of the product from September, 2014 and the price of the product was Rs. 170/- per unit in September, 2014, the price was further in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 (Annex-23). This was a matter of fact which had also not been contested by the Respondent No. 1. 15. The DGAP in his report has also submitted that it was important to examine the provisions of Section 171 of the Act and it was clear that in the event of benefit of ITC or reduction in the rate of tax, there must be a commensurate reduction in the prices of the goods or services. Such reduction could only be in terms of money, so that the final price payable by a recipient got reduced commensurate with the reduction in the tax rate or benefit of ITC. This was the only legally prescribed mechanism to pass on the benefit of ITC or reduction in the rate of tax to the recipients under the GST regime and there was no other method which a supplier could adopt to pass on such benefits. 16. The DGAP has further submitted that the Respondent No. 1 had sought to exclude the outward sale of the Goods sold to the CSD from the scope of the present investigation. On examination of the nature of the above sales and the copy of the agreement entered into by the Respondent No. 1, the DGAP has observed that the reduction in the rate of GST w.e.f. 15.11.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....butors (F=D+E) 161.85 Selling price per unit to distributor inclusive of GST as per invoice no. S170322005 dated 17.11.2017 (G) 179.41 Profiteering per unit (H=G-F) 17.57 Total quantity sold to distributor as per invoice no. S170322005 dated 17.11.2017 (I) 240 Total profiteering (J=H*I) 4216.17 19. The DGAP in his report has further mentioned that as per the aforesaid pre and post-reduction GST rates and the details of the outward taxable supplies (other than zero rated, CSD, nil rated and exempted supplies) of the product "Dettol HW Liquid Original 900 ml" during the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019, as furnished by the Respondent No. 1, the amount of net higher sales realization due to increase in the base price of the product, despite the reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% or in other words, the profiteered amount came to Rs. 63,14,901/-. The details of the computation have been furnished by the DGAP in Annexure-24. The said profiteered amount has been arrived at by comparing the average of the base prices of the product "Dettol HW Liquid Original 900 ml" sold during the period from 01.11.2017 to 14.11.2017 differently for different types....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alization due to increase in the base prices of the product, despite the reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% or in other words, the profiteered amount came to Rs. 2,33,456/-. The details of the computation have been furnished by the DGAP vide Annexure-26 of his Report dated 19.09.2019. The said profiteered amount has been arrived at by comparing the average of the base prices of the product "Dettol HW Liquid Original 900 ml" sold during the period from 01.11.2017 to 14.11.2017, with the actual invoice-wise base prices of the above product sold during the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019. The excess GST so collected from the recipients was also included in the aforesaid profiteered amount as the excess price collected from the recipients also included the GST charged on the increased base price. The DGAP has also intimated that on the basis of the details of the outward supplies submitted by the Respondent No. 2, it appeared that the product had been supplied by the Respondent No. 2 in the State of Delhi only. 22. The DGAP has claimed that the allegation of profiteering by way of increasing the base price of the above product when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tanding Committee did not consider the written complaint within the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules. Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules also didn't empower the Standing Committee to examine a written complaint beyond the period of limitation. In the present case, the limitation for the Standing Committee to examine the online written complaint expired on 29.09.2018 and the Standing Committee could not have examined the online written complaint in its meeting held on 11.03.2019. Hence the examination of the written application and reference to the DGAP by the Standing Committee was beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules. ii. That reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Chhatisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others (2010) 5 SCC 23 = 2010 (4) TMI 1031 - SUPREME COURT, followed in the case of Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited v. Electricity Department (2016) 16 SCC 152. iii. That since the consideration of the online written complaint by the Standing Committee was barred by limitation,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 01.06.2018 was a routine increase and due to commercial reasons:- i. That he had taken a price increase on the complained product nine months after the previous price increase and 6.5 months after the GST rate was reduced on 15.11.2017. However, the DGAP had ignored the same. He had been revising the price of the complained product, on regular intervals based on market factors, increase in the cost of raw materials, packing materials and inflation etc. and the price at which the product was supplied by him to his customers was directly dependent on the final MRP fixed by him. ii. That when the rate of GST was reduced from 28% to 18%, he immediately worked out the benefit that should be passed on to the recipients and accordingly reduced the MRP of the product by 8.1% from Rs. 209/- to Rs. 192/- w.e.f. 24.11.2017 (within 8 days of notification). To support this fact, he has enclosed a copy of the MRP stickers of the first batch of production of the complained product from his factory and a copy of the sticker was also enclosed as Exhibit-7. iii. That explanation of the historical pattern of MRP revision in respect of the complained product was furnished b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the investigation by the DGAP and the Report, covering the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019 and holding that the price increase undertaken by the Respondent No. 1 was in effect to claw back, the reduction in the applicable rate of tax and not due to commercial factors, was irrational, whimsical and contrary to the orders passed by this Authority. Consequently, the same had the effect of placing unlawful restraint on trade, a fundamental right of the Respondent No. 1 and was therefore violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Without prejudice, even assuming without admitting that the DGAP could have taken the period upto 31.03.2019 for the purpose of the investigation, the DGAP ought to have taken into consideration the increased BSP consequent to the increase in the input costs. ix. That the DGAP has used mechanical manner of taking the average supply value of the product (for period 01.11.2017-14.11.2017) and compared the same with the invoice value (15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019). That the DGAP had followed an incorrect and illegal approach to calculate the alleged profiteering. Thus. the demand in respect of alleged profiteering insofar as the same p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d profiteering:- i. That he had issued credit notes with respect to the cases where sales return was done by his customers. Details of the said sales return were provided to the DGAP during the investigation. However, the same had not been considered by the DGAP though the same had been accepted to be excluded from the scope of investigation in his report. The DGAP in Para 25, observed that the invoices against which credit notes had been issued by the Respondent No. 1 were excluded from the investigation. However, the benefit granted by such credit notes had not been factored in while computing profiteering. ii. That the DGAP while comparing the average base prices had considered all the invoices for the relevant period. Such invoices also contained cases where the product was not finally supplied and was returned to the Respondent No. 1. As the same did not form part of supplies undertaken by the Respondent No. 1, they should be excluded from the calculation of the alleged profiteering amount. iii. That if the above contention was taken into consideration, the alleged profiteering amount would further stand reduced by Rs. 37,411/- to Rs. 7,60,868/-. An ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved that on examination of the nature of the sales made to the CSD and the copy of agreement thereof, it was observed that the reduction in the rate of GST w.e.f. 15.11.2017 did not have any impact on the sales mentioned in respect of goods sold to the CSD. That the supplies made to Institutional Distributor Channel Partner were pari materia to the supplies made to the CSD. Thus, if the DGAP has extended benefit to the supplies made to the CSD, the same should also be extended in respect of supplies made to the Institutional Distributor Channel Partners. i. That the products including the complained product were manufactured/marketed across India for which the Respondent No. 1 had obtained separate GST registrations. The investigation conducted by the DGAP was in respect of all the GST registrations of the Respondent No. 1 located all over India, details of which were also furnished by the Respondent. j. That he had undertaken various measures to pass on the benefit to his recipients including MRP reductions, extension of the period of existing promotional schemes, addition of higher grammage on free of cost basis and higher post supply price reduction (discounts)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g by the Respondent No. 1 as he had not passed on the commensurate reduction in the rate of tax. There was also no prescription as to whether such computation had to be done invoice-wise, product-wise, business vertical-wise or entity-wise etc. and this Authority also had not exercised its powers under Rule 126 of the CGST Rules to prescribe the same. In the absence of such a prescription under the CGST Act or the Rules or by this Authority the DGAP had exercised arbitrary and unbridled powers, not vested in it and the same was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It would be impossible for the Respondent No. 1 to defend his case and explain how the observations and findings of DGAP were incorrect, thus violating the principles of natural justice. v. That in order to the control rise in inflation on account of implementation of GST, the Malaysian Government had introduced the 'Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Mechanism to Determine Unreasonably High Profit) (Net Profit Margin) Regulations 2014, which provided for the mechanism to calculate whether any company had profiteered on account of GST or not. The anti-profiteering measures in Australia revol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rms and it could not be passed on by way of increase in grammage, schemes and credit notes etc., the legislature would have explicitly stated so in Section 171 of the CGST Act. However, the legislature in its wisdom didn't specify that commensurate reduction in prices ought to be only through the mechanism of cash in BSP or MRP, in Section 171 of the CGST Act; hence the DGAP (an authority to exercise powers as vested under Chapter XV of the CGST Rules) could not import or impute meaning in the statute. He has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Petrochemical Industries Company Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector and ETIO and Others (2007) (5 SCC) 447 in which it was held that:- "Omission of words in a particular statute may play an important role. The intention of the legislature must be, as is well known, gathered from the words used in the statute at the first instance and only when such a rule would give rise to anomalous situation, the court may to recourse to purposive construction. It is also a well settled principle of law that casus omissus cannot be supplied." iii. That as per the various principles laid down by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y elements. Thus, price was not only what was reflected in the invoice. The monetary component might already be factored in the invoice price. However, the parties could also choose to settle the consideration partly in non-monetary terms. He had reduced the price by way of extension of promotion schemes and by providing additional quantity in the same amount and by these methods, he had ensured full and total compliance with Section 171 of the CGST Act and thus the finding of the DGAP with respect to profiteering was incorrect. iv. That in the absence of any prescribed methodology for passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction based on bonafide belief and legal advice received, he had passed on the benefit by way of Schemes whereby the additional quantity (in ml) was given along with the complained product. The production of the complained product with reduced MRP was commenced on 24.11.2017 and thereafter it was supplied with reduced MRP (base price) to the distributors and other channel partners. On the date of GST rate reduction i.e. 15.11.2017, the Respondent No. 1 had closing stock lying at various locations with the old MRP and the complained product was MRP drive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such inclusion was not sustainable in law:- i. That while arriving at the total alleged profiteering amount, the DGAP had incorrectly added 18% GST to the alleged profiteered amount without giving reasons which was contrary to the provision of law. The amount charged as GST by the Respondent No. 1, had been duly deposited with the Government. The amount termed as excess GST in the DGAP Report was not GST per se and such excess tax had been deposited with they Government. In view thereof, the said amount could not be treated as amount profiteered by him, for the purpose of Section 171 of the CGST Act. ii. That assuming, without admitting, that the Respondent No. 1 has profiteered and the GST has been collected thereon and the said GST was to be paid in the Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) then instead of the Respondent No. 1, the Government could transfer the amount equivalent to GST on the profiteered amount to the CWF. iii. That addition of 18% GST would have been correct if the amount had been collected and retained by him and not deposited with the Government. In this regard, reliance was placed on the case of R. S. Joshi Sales Tax Officer Gujarat v. Ajit M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent No. 1 by increasing the grammage to the recipients, and hence, in the same manner, it had been passed on by him to the recipients. b. That in view of the above, the matter might be sent back to the DGAP for reconsideration. 27. Supplementary Report was also called for from the DGAP on the above submissions dated 08.11.2019 and 13.11.2019 filed by the Respondent No. 1 and submissions dated 13.11.2019 filed by the Respondent No. 2 under Rule 133 (2A) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The DGAP vide has Report dated 27.11.2019 has stated:- i. That the Standing Committee vide minutes of its meeting dated 11.03.2019, had referred the above complaint mentioned in Annexure-1, to the DGAP for investigation. Further, 37 cases mentioned in Annexure-1C pertaining to the month of February, 2019 were duly disposed of by the above Committee on 11.03.2019 i.e. within a period of 02 months. ii. That the methodology/process adopted to compute the profiteering amount has already been discussed in detail, in the DGAP's Report dated 19.09.2019. However, this Authority may take a view regarding the period of investigation in the present case. iii. That he had exclude....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... iii. That the claim of the DGAP that the terms of supply to the CSD and Institutional Distributors were completely different was completely incorrect. The DGAP has not taken note of the fact that supplies to the Institutional Distributor were based on contractual and negotiated prices as they were in the case of supply to the CSD. In the case of CSD as well as sale to the Institutional distributors, the base price was decided and the actual applicable taxes were collected. The DGAP had given benefit in respect of the supplies made to the CSD as CGST/SGST was charged separately on them. However, even though the supplies made to the Institutional Distributor were on identical lines i.e. the applicable taxes were collected separately but the DGAP had rejected the same without giving any reason. iv. That the statement of the DGAP that "transactions against which credit notes have been issued were already excluded" was not correct. The DGAP had included the same while computing the profiteering amount. The DGAP had considered all the invoices while computing the profiteering amount. Some of the invoices also pertained to the cases where the product was not finally supplied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the CGST Act, 2017? 3) Whether there was any violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 by the Respondent No. 1 & 2? 4) What was the quantum of profiteering? 31. In this connection it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 which provide as under:- "(1). Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices." (2). The Central Government may, on recommendations of the Council, by notification, constitute an Authority, or empower an existing Authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to examine whether ITCs availed by any registered person or the reduction in the tax rate have actually resulted in a commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both supplied by him." (3). The Authority referred to in sub-section (2) shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be prescribed. (3A) Where the Authority referred to in sub-section (2) after holding examination as required under the said sub-section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by e-mail by the Applicant No. 1 by stating that "Attached please find GST profiteering complaint from the Anti-Profiteering Circle against Reckitt Benckiser." The complaint was filed in the Form prescribed for filing such complaints in which address, mobile number, email id and details of the Voter Identity Card of the Applicant No. 1 and name of the Respondent No. 1 was duly mentioned. The product against which the complaint was filed was mentioned as "Handwash dettol HW Liquid original 900 ml". It was also mentioned in the complaint that the Earlier Price/ Value per unit of the above product was Rs. 189.00, Present Price/ Value per unit was Rs. 192.00, Earlier MRP was Rs. 189.00 and Present MRP was 192.00. It was further mentioned that "After GST rates were reduced from 28% to 18% the MRP of Dettol product increased". It was also stated that the benefit of tax reduction had not been passed on. Additional information was also provided in the Form by stating that "The supplier Reckitt Benckiser seems to have increased the MRP of the product despite reduction in GST from 28% to 18%. The above complaint is received from a member of Local Circles. Local Circles is India's leading Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licant No. 1 was discussed in detail by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering comprising of S/Sh. H. Rajesh Prasad Commissioner, Department of Trade & Taxes, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Amit Kumar Aggarwal, Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Govt. of Haryana, Sanjay Mangal, Commissioner Central Tax (Audit) and Pranesh Pathak, Commissioner Central Tax in its meeting held on 11.03.2019 and vide Sr. No. 29 of the minutes of the meeting recorded in respect of the above complaint which was mentioned in Annexure-1C, it was decided to forward the above complaint to the DGAP for detailed investigation under Rule 129 (1). The minutes of the above meeting have been attached as Exhibit-6 by the Respondent No. 1 with his submissions dated 08.11.2019. It is also apparent from the perusal of the minutes of the above meeting that the complaint was treated to have been received in the month of February, 2019 by the above Committee. 36.It is therefore, abundantly clear from the above facts that the complaint made by the Applicant No. 1 vide his e-mail dated 30.07.2018 had been returned by the Standing Committee to the Applicant No. 1, as per the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 07.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the above date the DGAP would not have investigated him beyond that date. The Respondent is liable to be investigated even now as he has not shown proof to establish that he has passed on the benefit of tax reduction. However, he has continued to increase his price without reducing his price commensurately and hence, any amount realised by him due to such price increase is liable to be included in the profiteered amount. Accordingly, the present investigation has been rightly conducted by the DGAP till 31.03.2019 and there is no ground to limit it till 31.03.2018 as has been claimed by the Respondent. 39. The Respondent has further contended that he had been revising the price of the complained product at regular intervals based on the market factors and increase in the costs which were ignored by the DGAP. The Respondent No. 1 has also submitted Cost Accountant's certificate stating that there was 10.42% increase in the cost of production. It would be pertinent to mention here that the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act require the Respondent No. 1 to pass on the benefit of tax reduction to the consumers only and have no mandate to look into the fixing of pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as there was no tax reduction. In the second case the rates fixed after rate reduction were commensurate with the denial of ITC. However, in the instant case, no such benefit of ITC has been denied to the above Respondent nor the rate of tax has been increased rather the rate has been reduced and hence, the Respondent was liable to reduce his price commensurately as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the facts of both the above cases referred by the Respondent No. 1 are different from his case and hence, they cannot help him. 42.The Respondent has further argued that the DGAP has followed an incorrect approach to compute the amount of profiteering by comparing the average supply value of the product for the period from 01.11.2017 to 14.11.2017 with the actual invoice value for the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019. However, he should have compared the average of all the invoices in the pre and the post rate reduction periods. In this regard, it would be appropriate to mention that the DGAP has computed the average base price of the product on the basis of the details of the invoices and their reconciliation with his GSTR-1 Return for the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t considered by the DGAP while calculating profiteering. In this context, perusal of the DGAP's Report dated 19.09.2019 and Supplementary Report dated 27.11.2019, shows that the DGAP has considered all such credit notes which had been issued by the Respondent No. 1 in respect of the sales where the product was returned after sale and the benefit of such credit notes has been duly given to the above Respondent while computing the profiteered amount. Hence, the above claim of the Respondent No. 1 is wrong and hence the same cannot be accepted. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 37,411/- claimed by the above Respondent on this ground cannot be reduced from the profiteered amount as per Annexure-11. 44.The Respondent No. 1 has also contended that the supplies made by him to the Institutional Distributor Channel Partner were liable to be excluded from the scope of investigation as was done in the case of CSD. In this regard, the DGAP vide his supplementary Report dated 27.11.2019 has stated that the terms and conditions in respect of the supplies made to CSD and Institutional Distributor were completely different and hence, the supplies made to the Institutional Distributor were not exclu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conducted on all such impacted products/units/services. The definition of profiteered amount has been amply made clear in the explanation attached to Section 171 which has been quoted supra. These benefits can also not be passed on at the entity/organisation/branch level as the benefits have to be passed on to each recipient at each product/unit/service level. Further, the above Section mentions any supply" which denotes each taxable supply made to each recipient thereby clearly stating that a supplier cannot claim that he has passed on more benefit to one customer therefore he would pass less benefit to another customer than the benefit which is actually due to that customer. Each customer is entitled to receive the benefit of tax reduction or ITC on each product or unit or service purchased by him. The word "commensurate" mentioned in the above Section gives the extent of benefit to be passed on by way of reduction in the prices which has to computed in respect of each product or unit or service based on the tax reduction as well as the existing base price or the additional ITC available. The computation of commensurate reduction in prices is purely a mathematical exercise which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en a single penny from their own pocket and hence they have to pass on the above benefits as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) which are abundantly clear, unambiguous and mandatory which truly reflect the intent of the Central and State legislatures. The Respondent is trying to mislead by giving wrong impression that he was required to carry out massive mathematical computations for passing on the benefit of tax reduction which he could not do in the absence of the procedure and methodology. However, the same is not correct as he was only required to continue to charge the same base price which he was charging before the tax reduction and charge GST at the reduced rate of 18%. However, the Respondent had intentionally increased his base price post rate reduction and then charged GST @ 18% whereby the ultimate price charged to the customer was the same which he was paying before the tax reduction which has resulted in denial of the above benefit. Hence, no methodology and procedure or guidelines or elaborate mathematical calculations were required to be carried out for passing on the benefit of tax reduction. Therefore, the above contention of the Respondent is frivolous and hen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e under the CGST Act and the Rules. In this regard it would be appropriate to mention that the above Act has been repealed by Malaysia as it was not found to be working properly. Moreover, this Act was promulgated to control prices after introduction of GST in the above Country whereas no provision for controlling prices has been made in the CGST Act, 2017. Similarly, the 'Net Dollar Margin Rule' applicable in Australia also provides mechanism for price control which is not the intent of Section 171. This Authority has also not been mandated to work as a price controller or regulator and it is only empowered to ensure that the benefits of tax reduction and ITC are passed to the consumers as per the specific provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. It is strange that the Respondent is advocating implementation of the price control measures under the CGST Act, 2017. The above claim of the Respondent also runs contrary to the argument of the Respondent which claims that no fetters can be placed on his power to fix prices of his products in violation of the provisions of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Therefore, the above contention of the Respondent is untenable a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the certificate issued by his Chartered Accountant to support his claim. However, the Respondent has not supplied the following details to prove his above contention:- 1. He has not submitted the details of the base price and the final price which he was charging on the above product before the tax reduction. 2. He has not supplied the details of the base price and the final price which he was required to charge commensurate to the rate reduction after the rate reduction. 3. He has not supplied the details of the quantity which he was supplying of the above product before the tax reduction. 4. He has not supplied the details of the additional quantity which was required to be supplied, commensurate with the benefit of rate reduction. 5. He has not explained whether the additional quantity supplied by him was proportionate to the rate reduction. 6. He has not produced any evidence to prove from which date the additional quantity was supplied post rate reduction. 7. He has also not supplied copy of even a single invoice which could prove that he has passed on the benefit of tax reduction by supplying additional quanti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstrued in any other manner. He has also relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Petrochemical Industries Company Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector and ETIO and others (2007) (5 5CC) 447 in his support. However, in view of the express provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, the above judgement does not help the cause of the Respondent. 54. The Respondent No. 1 has further contended that the additional GST charged has been included in the profiteered amount whereas it has been deposited with the Government. In this connection it would be appropriate to mention that the Respondent No. 1 has not only collected excess base price from the customers which they were not required to pay due to the reduction in the rate of tax but he has also compelled them to pay additional GST on the excess base price which they should not have paid. By doing so the Respondent No. 1 has defeated the very purpose of both the Central and the State Governments which aimed to provide the benefit of rate reduction to the general public. The Respondent No. 1 was legally not required to collect the excess GST and therefore, he has not only violated the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d amount is determined as Rs. 63,14,901/- in respect of the Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,33,456/- in respect of the Respondent No. 2 in terms of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, during the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019. This Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent No. 1 & 2 shall reduce their prices commensurately as has been detailed above. The Respondent No. 1 & 2 are also directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 63,14,901/- and Rs. 2,33,456/- respectively in the CWF of the Central and the concerned State Governments, as the recipients are not identifiable, as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c) of the above Rules alongwith 18% interest payable from the dates from which the above amount was realised by them from their recipients till the date of deposit. The above amount shall be deposited within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order failing which it shall be recovered by the concerned Commissioners CGST/SGST. The State/Union Territory wise amount of benefit to be deposited by the Respondent No. 1 in the concerned CWFs is as under:- S. No. State Code State Profiteered Amount (Rs.) 1 01 ....