TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2019 had requested the DGAP to conduct a detailed investigation as per Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules on the allegation that M/s Raymond Ltd. had not passed on the benefit of tax reduction from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 on "After-Shave Lotion Park Avenue Good Morning 50 ml which was supplied to M/s Big Bazaar, Inderlok run by M/s Future Retail Ltd., on 08.11.2017 under Purchase Order (PO) No. 8114997697 with MRP of Rs. 115/- per unit, on 19.12.2017 under PO No. 8115407972 with the same MRP of Rs. 115/- per unit and on 12.06.2018 vide PO No. 4518098598 again with the same MRP of Rs. 115/- per unit. 2. The DGAP had issued Notice under Rule 129 (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on 09.04.2019 to M/s Raymond Ltd., to submit his reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of reduction in the GST rate w.e.f. 15.11.2017, had not been passed on by him to his recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices and if so, to suo moto determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply to the Notice as well as furnish all the documents in support of his reply. He was also afforded an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidence/information which formed the basis of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 04.06.2019 to the Respondent No. 1 and 2 seeking their replies as to whether they admitted that the benefit of GST rate reduction had not been passed on by them to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the prices of the goods supplied by them and if so, to suo moto determine and indicate the same in their replies to the Notices. They were also given an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidence/ information furnished by the Applicant No. 1 on 10.06.2019 or 12.06.2019 and the same was not availed by both the Respondents. In response to the above Notice and subsequent reminders/summons, the Respondent No. 1 had submitted his replies in a piecemeal manner vide his e-mails/letters dated 18.06.2019, 24.06.2019, 05.07.2019, 05.08.2019. 16.08.2019, 24.08.2019, 28.08.2019, 05.09.2019. 09.09.2019, 10.09.2019. 11.09.2019 and 16.09.2019 which have been summed up by the DGAP as follows.- (a) That the aforesaid three POs were issued by M/s Big Bazaar to the Respondent No. 2 and the said transactions referred by the Applicant No. 1 were between the Respondent No. 2 and M/s Big Bazaar and he was not a party to the said transactions. Thus, the proceedings initiated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscount of 7.81% on the sale prices on the face of the invoices itself and the same was also evident from the fact that the rate of discount under Column No. 26 of the sales sheet was named as "discount on account of GST rate change. ii. His Company Sale Price (CSP) per unit post 15.11.2017 was either less than or equal to the sale price per unit pre 15.11.2017. While arriving at these sale prices per unit, he had not considered seasonal discounts because they were temporary in nature and depended on a particular season or peculiar market requirements. The seasonal discounts were given only in respect of the period during which they were effective and for the remaining period, the base prices were charged without any seasonal discount. This seasonal discount was not available to the customers as a matter of right and entirely depended on the marketing campaign run by him during a particular season. The seasonal discount being exceptional in nature need not be adjusted in his sale price in both the periods mentioned above. iii. In the absence of sales in the period prior to 15.11.2017 for a given customer for a given product, there could not arise any situation of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... place, he was unable to determine the reasons for the difference between the net CSP adopted pre and post 15.11 2017. viii. Comparison over a period of 21 months from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 without any adjustment of inflation and other factors that might govern a price increase would be unreasonable and hence such comparison must be restricted to shorter period of three months. Whenever the revenue authorities sought to compare the prices of identical products, regard must be had to the various factors including quantity, time gap. additional costs on logistics, market factors and transactional peculiarities etc. 6. The DGAP has also stated that the Respondent No 1 has also submitted the following documents/information requesting not to disclose them to any other party:- a. List of all GSTINs. b. Copies of GSTR-1 & GSTR-3B Returns for the period from July, 2017 to March, 2019 for all the registrations held all over India. c. Invoice-wise and Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) wise details of the outward taxable supplies (other than zero rated. nil rated and exempted) for the period from July 2017 to March 2019 for all the GST registrations. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sumers at the prices which varied from case to case and depended upon various factors including the regional demand and supply factors, market outreach of the distributor, yearly volume of sales, the length of relationship and market aging etc. The Respondent No. 1 has further mentioned that the goods were sold or distributed through channels of General Trade, Modern Trade, Institutional buyers, E-commerce platforms and CSD etc. Each channel had different pricing pattern and margins. He has also contended that the DGAP has wrongly determined profiteering by comparing the customer type or channel wise average of the base prices of the impugned products sold during the period from 01.11.2017 to 14.11.2017 or the latest month, wherever goods were not sold during the period from 01.11.2017 to 14.11.2017, with the actual invoice-wise base prices of such products sold during the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019. 11. The DGAP has also submitted that in regard to the Respondent No. 1's contention of giving discount of 7.81% on account of GST rate change and for not considering the discount based on the season or on the peculiar market requirements for the purpose of comparison, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reduction in prices and hence the claim of the Respondent No. 1 that he had passed on the benefit of GST rate reduction on certain newly launched products by removing the introductory offer of 25% extra content and by increasing the quantity or grammage of the products, while maintaining the earlier pre-rate reduction MRPs of such products, was also not acceptable. 13. The DGAP has also mentioned that the Respondent No. 1 has also sought to exclude the outward sale of the following goods from the scope of the present investigation:- (a) New Stock Keeping Units (SKUs) introduced after 14.11.2017. (b) Life Style Stores (LFS) channel introduced in July 2018 i.e. post 15.11.2017, where pre-rate change comparison of prices was not available. (c) Sales made through the CSD/CPC/BSF and INCS. (d) No sales made from July 2017 to 14.11.2017 so no comparison was available. 14. On examination of the nature of the above sales and the copies of the Circulars issued by the CSD, CPC and INCS to the Respondent No. 1 the DGAP has observed that the reduction in the rate of GST w.e.f. 15.11.2017 did not have any impact on the sales mentioned at points No. (a)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice No. H GWTSSI180566 9. Invoice Date I 21.11.2017 10. Total quantity (as per invoice indicated in H) J 12 11. Total Invoice Value (including GST) K 1,082/- 12. Actual Selling price (post rate reduction)(including GST) 90.19/- 13. Excess amount charged or Profiteering M=L-G 6.04/- 14. Total Profiteering N=J*M 72.48/- 15. From the above Table, the DGAP has concluded that it was clear that the Respondent No. 1 did not reduce the selling price commensurately of the PA Asl Good Morning Splash 50ml (MRP 115/-) (NPAASG050008)" product, when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, vide Notification No. 41/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 and hence he had profiteered an amount of Rs. 72.48/- on a particular invoice and thus the benefit of reduction in the GST rate was not passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the price, in terms of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. On the basis of above calculation as illustrated in the Table given above, profiteering in case of all the imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 35 2,89,408 - 2,89,408 2. Andhra Pradesh (New) 37 28,81,350 22,75,744 51,57,094 3. Arunachal Pradesh 12 34,078 - 34,078 4. Assam 18 24,31,584 5,41,810 29,73,394 5. Bihar 10 30,19,659 6,47,652 36,67,311 6. Chandigarh 4 3,05,386 19,166 3,24,552 7. Chhattisgarh 22 19,11,865 3,50,075 22,61,939 8. Dadra and Nagar Haveli 26 11,657 - 11,657 9. Daman and Diu 25 - 38,376 38,376 10. Delhi 7 68,66,663 43,21,976 1,11,88,639 11. Goa 30 2,85,628 52,144 3,37,772 12. Gujarat 24 26,96,883 41,05,036 68,01,918 13. Haryana 6 14,01,212 50,76,462 64,77,674 14. Himachal Pradesh 2 2,52,766 24,617 2,77,384 15. Jammu and Kashmir 1 2,19,967 65,582 2,85,549 16. Jharkhand 20 13,68,148 4,66,696 18,34,843 17. Karnataka 29 56,54,964 94,82,431 1,51,37,395 18. Kerala 32 57,65,995 9,28,745 66,94,740 19. Madhya Pradesh 23 24,39,065 40,82,573 65,21,637 20. Maharashtra 27 1,5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e recipients also included the GST charged on the increased base prices. The place (State or Union Territory) of supply-wise break-up of the total profiteered amount of Rs. 38.64,891/- has been furnished by the DGAP in the Table given below:- Table S.No. Name of State State Code Profiteering (Rs.) 1 Haryana 06 52,916 2 Delhi 07 38,04,137 3 Uttar Pradesh 09 7,838 Grand Total 38,64,891 19. After perusal of the DGAP's Report, this Authority in its meeting held or 01.10.2019 had decided to hear the Applicants and the Respondents on 24.10.2019 and accordingly notices were issued to all the interested parties. Notices were also issued to the Respondents on 03.10.2019 asking them to reply why the Report dated 24.09.2019 furnished by the DGAP should not be accepted and their liability for profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 should not be fixed. On behalf of the Applicants none appeared whereas the Respondent No. 1 was represented by Sh. Alpesh Dalai, Director (Finance), Sh. Nirav Parek (Employee), Sh. V. Lakshmikumaran, Sh. K. Srikanth, Sh. Gokul Kishore and Sh. Darshan Machchhar Advocates and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 331 (Delhi - Trib.) = 2015 (10) TMI 2168 - ITAT DELHI and Gujarat Paraffins Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2012 (282) ELT 33) = 2012 (5) TMI 210 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT. On the insistence of the Respondent No. 1 the above objections have been considered by this Authority and vide its Interim Order No. 10/2020 dated 17.02.2020 they have been found to be not tenable. Hence, the above contentions of the Respondent are not being mentioned in the present order. 22. The Respondent No 1 has filed further written submissions on 02.03.2020 and has also given Power Point Presentation. 23. The Respondent No 1 has submitted that the procedure followed by the DGAP during the investigation was not in accordance with Rule 128 and Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017. He has also submitted that the complaint had been filed by the Applicant No. 1 by stating that M/s Raymond Ltd. had supplied 'Park Avenue After Shave Lotion Good Morning 50 ml', the price/value per unit pre and post GST rate reduction of which was INR 115/-. Accordingly, M/s. Raymond Ltd. had filed his reply inter alia stating that the said product was not supplied him but was sold by his associate company viz. the Respondent No. 1. M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the base prices:- Pre-rate reduction Post-rate reduction Date Base Price Discount Net base price Date Base price Discount(@7.81% of base price) Net base price 10.08.17 64.90 - 64.90 24.01.18 70.40 5.50 64.90 21.08.17 64.90 64.90 24.10.17 64.90 - 64.90 30.01.18 70.40 5.50 64.90 30.11.17 64.90 - 64.90 13.03.18 70.40 5.50 64.90 14.11.17 64.90 - 64.90 15.03.18 70.40 5.50 64.90 25. The Respondent No. 1 has also stated that he had kept the same base price by offering additional discount of 7.81% on the invoices on account of reduction in the rate of tax. However, the Standing Committee, on the basis of the above POs to which the Respondent No. 1 was not a party. had referred the matter for detailed investigation. It has been further submitted that there should have been some material to prima facie establish the allegation of profiteering before a reference was made by the Standing Committee. Thus; both the reference made by the Standing Committee and the consequent investigation by the DGAP were b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to consideration the various other commercial factors affecting the pricing and MRPs of the products, it should be considered as a conscious effort on the part of Respondent No. 1 to pave the way for new prices to be charged for the products sold by the Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, it has been submitted by the Respondent No. 1 that the period of investigation should be restricted to a period up to January 2018 as by this time the effect of new prices I grammage had already come into picture. The Respondent No. 1 has cited the following cases decided by this Authority in which the period of investigation was restricted from 2 to 5 months:- a. Sharma Trading Company (3 Months) = 2018 (9) TMI 625 - THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY b. Hardcastle Restaurants (3 Months) = 2018 (11) TMI 1073 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY c. Unicharm India Pvt. Ltd. (3 Months) = 2019 (7) TMI 36 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY d. Excel Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. (3 Months) = 2019 (1) TMI 807 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY e. Harish Bakers & Confectionaries (3 Months) = 2018 (12) TMI 473 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY The Respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ale reduction in tax had taken place and there was no precedent in terms of compliance of the Anti-Profiteering provisions and hence, there was complete tack of clarity as to how this reduction was to be passed on. The benefit of reduction in the rate of tax had to be passed on in respect of the goods which were held in stock by the Respondent No. 1 on 14.11.2017 as well as the goods which were to be manufactured by him on or after 15.11.2017. The Respondent No. 1 has also contended that he wanted to ensure that such reduction should also be reflected by way of reduced MRPs on the packages or through increased grammage. However, implementation of reduced MRPs on the packages I increase in the grammage was a time-consuming process as these changes could have only been implemented over a period of next 1-3 months. Till then, he was determined to pass on the benefit to his customers. Accordingly, he had decided to immediately pass on the benefit through additional primary discount of 7.81% in the cum-tax price (equivalent to the reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18%) on all the SKUs held in stock as on 14.11.2017 (excluding SKUs which were manufactured in excise-free units in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven effect by keeping the pre tax price (base price) constant, which had resulted in a reduction of 7.81% in the cum tax price charged to the customers, therefore, the allegation of profiteering could only be to the extent of 7.81%, which reflected the reduction in the tax rate. Based on the methodology adopted by the DGAP, the Respondent No. 1 was required to maintain the same base prices which were prevalent during the pre rate reduction period and if the business profit was also treated as the profiteered amount, the same might amount to 'price control' which was neither intended nor mandated by Section 171 of the CGST Act. The Respondent No. 1 has referred to the order passed in the case of Lifestyle Retail Pvt. Ltd.- Case No. 8/2018 dated 25.09.2018 = 2018 (9) TMI 1640 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY wherein this Authority has observed that it was not functioning as a `price regulator' The Respondent No. 1 has computed an amount of Rs. 5.47 Crore (Annexure-15) on this ground and argued that it should be excluded from the profited amount. 31. The Respondent No. 1 has also submitted that there was no effective reduction in the rate of tax on the SKUs which were manufa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecided to continue giving discount @ 7.81% until April 2018, by which time the old stock had exhausted and he had started selling the new stock without introductory offer. He has further submitted that once sale of the products had commenced without introductory offer. the prices of the products charged during the pre-rate reduction period no longer remained as comparable prices as the pre-rate reduction prices were highly discounted. Hence, no profiteering should be computed on these products where introductory offers were withdrawn. The product codes for these products were NPAPDA150001, NPAPDE150001 and NPAPDM150001 in respect of which the profiteering computed by DGAP was Rs. 1.33 Crore (Annexure-20) which should be excluded from the total alleged profiteering. 33. The Respondent No. 1 has also submitted that he had made sales to a class of customers known as institutional Customers They were either direct corporate customers or distributors through which sales were made only to the corporate customers. Bulk orders were placed by the corporate customers generally for corporate gifts, where the quantity and prices were negotiated on each and every order. The prices were highl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other hand, the DGAP had insisted that where the benefit to the customers was less than what was required to be passed on, regardless of other measures, the differential amount was being sought to be alleged as the profiteered amount. The Respondent No. 1 has also argued that similar methodology of 'Zeroing' was used by the Anti-dumping Authorities in the European Union (EU). According to the said methodology, while calculating the dumping margins only those SKUs were considered which were being dumped and those SKUs which were not being dumped were not considered. The Government of India had disputed this practice and had taken stand against such methodology before the WTO and argued that while determining the dumping margins, all SKUs should be considered rather than only those which showed positive dumping. In this regard, the Respondent No. 1 has referred to the Report No. WT/DSI41/AB/R dated 01.03.2001 of the Appellate Body of the WTO regarding Anti-Dumping Duties on imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India vide which it was held that the methodology of 'Zeroing could not be applied and both the negative and positive margins were to be considered while applying the anti-dum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 10/- with the excise authorities and can utilise this credit when I pay excise duty on my finished product. The real cost of the raw material (exclusive of freight, insurance and the like) to me is, therefore, Rs. 901-. In reckoning the cost of the final product I would include Rs, 90/- on this account." This, in real terms, is the cost of the raw material (exclusive of freight, insurance and the like) and it is this, in our view, which should properly be included in computing the cost of the excisable product," (emphasis supplied) 37. The Respondent has also submitted that the alleged profiteered amount has been incorrectly inflated in the Report by adding GST which was not sustainable. He has further added that the DGAP vide para 31 of his Report has observed that the profiteered amount of Rs. 18,48,34,084/- has been arrived at by comparing the customer type or channel-wise average of the base prices of the goods sold during the period from 01.11.2017 to 14.11.2017 with the actual invoice-wise base prices of such goods 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 amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all post-supply price reductions passed on should be factored in while examining whether commensurate reduction in prices had taken place or not. He has also submitted that commensurate reduction was not restricted to passing of the benefit of tax rate reduction in monetary terms which was normally the price. Section 171 did not use the words 'pass on the benefit by reduction in price'. It should be seen whether the objective of Section 171 was being achieved or not. If the recipient got the benefit in monetary or non-monetary form proportionate to tax rate reduction, Section 171 was complied with. Price in this regard was the consideration paid or payable for the supply. The Respondent No. 1 has further submitted that the term 'profiteering' was not defined in the CGST Act or the rules made thereunder. He has also referred to the following dictionaries for explaining the meaning of the word 'profiteering':- a. The Chambers Dictionary, Allied Chambers (India) Ltd., New Delhi. b The Collins Cobuild English Dictionary for Advanced Learners - Harper Collins Publication. c. Oxford English Reference Dictionary - Oxford University Press. 39. The Respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of MRPs. Affixation of stickers with revised MRPs and allied compliances were provided under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011. As per the provisions of the above Act, in respect of reduction in the MRPs, it was permissible to affix stickers with revised lower MRPs and ensure that the revised MRPs did not cover the MRPs declared earlier. The said rule provided discretion to the supplier regarding affixation of stickers as the words used were may be affixed'. Therefore, in case of reduction in the MRPs, there was no compulsion to affix stickers with revised MRPs. The Respondent No. 1 has also submitted that Rule 6 (3) of the above Rules dealt with the affixation of stickers with the revised lower MRPs without reference to the person who was empowered in this regard. The only condition was that such stickers should not cover the MRPs already declared by the manufacturer or the packer on his products. Therefore, it could be said that such stickers could be affixed also by the distributors, dealers or the retailers. It was further submitted that a commensurate reduction in the price on supply of goods was the only mandate under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubstitute to a Show Cause Notice. However, from the notice received by the Respondent No. 1, it appeared that this Authority has considered the Report of the DGAP as a Show Cause Notice, which was not correct. He has also submitted that in the present case except for providing a copy of the Report of the DGAP, as on date the Respondent No. 1 was not served any notice/communication regarding the issues to be examined and action proposed to be taken against him. The Respondent No. 1 has also claimed that he could not presume the Report of the DGAP to be a Show Cause Notice and defend himself. He has further claimed that even if the CGST Act and the CGST Rules did not provide for issuance of a Show Cause Notice before initiating proceedings under Section 171, this Authority should have issued a Show Cause Notice to the Respondent No. 1 in terms of principles of natural justice as was held by various courts in their decisions/judgments referred below:- a. Canara Bank and Others v. Debasis Das and Others 2003 4 SCC 557 = 2003 (3) TMI 664 - SUPREME COURT. b. Uma Nath Pandey and Others v. State of UP (2009) 12 SCC 40 = 2009 (3) TMI 526 - SUPREME COURT. c. Collec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....original complaint and hence the fresh examination of the same was barred by limitation. He has also cited the following cases in his support:- (i) Roshan Lal Gupta & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2016 (331) ELT 239 (Guj.) = 2015 (12) TMI 931 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT. (ii) Vidyawati Gupta & others v. Bhakti Hari Nayak & others (2006) 2 SCC 777 = 2006 (2) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT. (iii) All India Reporter Ltd. v. Ramchandra Dhondo Data AIR 1961 Bom 292 = 1959 (9) TMI 60 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT 47. The Respondent No 1 has also contended that this Authority had ample powers to modify its Interim Order dated 17.02.2020 as per the law settled in the following cases:- (a) Union of India v. Auto & General Engg. Co. 1995 (80) ELT 246 (Del.) = 1995 (7) TMI 182 - DELHI HIGH COURT. (b) Baron International Ltd. v. Union of India 2004 (163) ELT 150 (Bom) = 2003 (9) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. (c) Garg Ispat Udyog Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur 2013 (288) ELT 392 (Tri.-Del.) = 2013 (9) TMI 169 - CESTAT NEW DELHI 48. The Respondent No. 1 has also claimed that the POs mentioned in the complaint pertained to the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was never looked in to by the Delhi State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering, as mandated under rule 128 (2) of the CGST Rules, 2017. He has further stated that even examination of the application by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering was not in accordance with Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 which required it to dispose of the same within a period of 2 months. He has also contended that in the present case the application/ complaint was made on 30.07.2018 and it was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering in its meeting held on 11.03.2019 i.e. after 7 months of the receipt of the application and hence the recommendation made by the above Committee for conducting investigation against him was illegal and was barred by limitation. The Respondent No. 2 has also submitted that that as per rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, to determine whether there was prima-facie evidence to support the claim of the applicant, the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering was required to examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application. However, in the present case no evidence was provided by the Applicant No. 1 in support of his applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 55. He has further argued that the DGAP had included the additional tax collected in the profiteered amount which had been duly deposited with the Government and such additional tax deposited by the Respondent No. 2 could not be attributed as the profiteered amount. The calculation of the amount collected as tax and deposited by the Respondent No. 2 with the Government is reproduced hereunder:- S.No. Particulars Details (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 1 Value as per company (a) - Taxable amount 4,42,97,386 (b) - Tax amount 79,73.530 Total 5,22,70,916 2 Price as per DGAP (a) - Taxable amount 4,10,22.055 (b) - Tax amount 73,83,970 Total 4,84,06,024 3 Profiteering amount 38,64,891 4 Less: exclusion of GST component 1b-2b 5 89 560 5 Non-GST amount 32,75,332 56. The Respondent No. 2 has also stated that even otherwise the DGAP has taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rect in as much as the same has not taken into account the debit notes raised by the buyers, which had resulted in reduction in the sale prices of the Respondent No. 1. After the sales had taken place the buyers had issued debit notes in respect of tax difference but the same have not been considered by DGAP at all. He has further claimed that the debit notes on account of discount of 7.81% as had been claimed by the Respondent No. 1 (although disallowed by the DGAP in his Report), were issued to him only till March 31, 2018. Post that, the Respondent No. 2 had not received any discount and was naturally required to sell his products at higher base prices to offset the increase in the purchase prices and consequently, out of the total alleged profiteered amount of Rs. 38,64,891, the alleged profiteering of Rs. 27.65,658 which related to the F. Y. 2018-19 could not be held to be undue profiteering. 58. The Respondent No. 2 has also mentioned that the present Report was bad in law on account of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties vis-a-vis him in as much as he was a middle man in the supply chain and had no control over the price fixation vis-a-vis the Modern Trade. The prices ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2020 and stated that the Respondent No. 1 had raised objection on the time limit which barred reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering to the DGAP, however, his office had received the same on 27.03.2019 and his action was in consonance with the contents of the Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017. 61. The DGAP vide his Report dated 23.01.2020 has also replied to the submissions of the Respondent No. 2 dated 08.01.2020 and stated the following:- (a) That he had received the complaint on 27.03.2019 from the Standing Committee along with its minutes of meeting dated 11.03.2019 with a remark that the complaint was being forwarded to the DGAP for investigation. So, his action was totally in consonance with the contents of Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. (b) That Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Chapter XV of the CGST Rules, 2017, required the supplier of goods and services to pass on the benefit of tax rate reduction to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in price and price included both the base price and the tax paid on it. If any supplier has charged more tax from the recipients, the aforesaid statutory provisions would requi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Styling Gel, Grooming Kit, Soap and Talc etc. It is also revealed that he is marketing his products through the channels of (i) General Trade (ii) Modern Trade (iii) Institutional Partners (iv) E-Commerce Platforms (v) CSD and (v) Distributors. General consumers are buying the above products through all the above channels. The Respondent No. 2 has admitted that he is a distributor of the Respondent No. 1 and is selling the above products. The Respondent No. 1 has also accepted that the Respondent No. 2 was his distributor. It is further revealed that the both the Respondents are registered under the CGST and the SGST Acts, 2017 respectively. 63. It is also clear from the record that the rate of GST was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, vide Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 on the products which were being supplied by the Respondents, the benefit of which was required to be passed on by them to their customers as per the provisions of Section 171 of the GST laws applicable to them. 64. It is also apparent from the record that an application dated 30.07.2018 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti- profiteering, under Rule 128 (1) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... product after discount by dividing the total taxable value by the total quantity of this item sold during the period from 01.11.2017 to 14.11.2017. The average base price so calculated of this product was compared with its actual selling base price during the post-GST rate reduction period at which it was supplied on or after 15.11.2017, through the above channel and accordingly, the DGAP has reported that the Respondent No. 1 has profiteered an amount of Rs. 6.04 on the above item. On the basis of above methodology profiteering in respect of all the impacted goods of both the above Respondents for the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019 has been calculated in the similar way for each channel of sale or the customer separately by the DGAP. The methodology adopted by the DGAP for computation of profiteered amount by comparing the average base prices of the products in respect of which the rate of GST was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 with the actual post rate reduction base prices of these products appears to be correct, reasonable, justifiable and in consonance with the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as it was not possible to compare the actual base p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....expense of the vulnerable customers. Accordingly, on the basis of the pre and post reduction GST rates and the details of the outward taxable supplies of the impacted products made during the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019 the profiteered amount in respect of the Respondent No. 1 has been rightly computed as Rs. 18,48,43,084/- channel/customer wise, including the GST, the details which have been mentioned in Annexure-32 of the Report dated 24.09.2019 submitted by the DGAP. The above amount also includes an amount of Rs. 8,97,253/- including the GST which the Respondent No. 1 has profiteered from the Respondent No. 2, as has been detailed in Annexure-33. The State wise profiteered amount has been mentioned in Table-B of the Report. The profiteered amount has been calculated as Rs. 38,64,891/- including the GST in respect of the Respondent No. 2, the State wise break up of which has been given in Table-C of the Report dated 24.09.2019, furnished by the DGAP. 66. The Respondent No. 1 has stated in his submissions that the procedure followed by the DGAP during the investigation was not in accordance with Rule 128 and 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017 as the complaint had been filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s notice during the course of the investigation. 68. It would also be pertinent to mention here that the Government of India. Ministry of Finance. Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vide its Office Order No. 05/Ad.IV/2018 dated 12.06.2018 in pursuance of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) 34Th Amendment Rules, 2018 has assigned the following duties to the DGAP:- a) Conduct of investigation to collect evidence necessary to determine whether the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit has been passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices, in terms of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the rules made thereunder. b) Responsibility for coordinating anti-profiteering work with the National Anti-profiteering Authority, the Standing Committee and the State level Screening Committees." 69. Therefore, it is also apparent from the above OM that the DGAP is responsible for investigating and collecting evidence necessary to determine whether both the above benefits have been passed on. No restrictions ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and it cannot be accepted. 70. The Respondent No. 1 has further stated that had the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering examined the sample invoices issued by him to the Respondent No. 2 in respect of the product code NPAASG050008 having description "PA As1 Good Morning Splash 50ml (MRP 115/-) After shave Lotion", it would have found that he had kept the base price same prior to and after the reduction in the rate of tax by offering discount of 7.81% on account of reduction in the rate of GST. On the basis of the invoices, the Respondent No. 1 has submitted the following information:- Pre-rate reduction Post-rate reduction Date Base Price Discount Net base price Date Base price Discount(@7.81% of base price) Net base price 10.08.17 64.90 - 64.90 24.01.18 70.40 5.50 64.90 21.08.17 64.90 64.90 24.10.17 64.90 - 64.90 30.01.18 70.40 5.50 64.90 30.11.17 64.90 - 64.90 13.03.18 70.40 5.50 64.90 14.11.17 64.90 - 64.90 15.03.18 70.40 5.50 64.90 71. Perusal of the above Table shows that the Respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant to mention that the rate of tax on the products being supplied by the above Respondent was reduced w.e.f. 15.11.2017 and therefore, he was legally required to pass on the benefit of tax reduction from the above date as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act. During the course of the investigation it has been found that the Respondent No. 1 instead of reducing his prices commensurately had infact increased them from the above date. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) he is liable to be investigated till the time he passes on the benefit of tax reduction as he cannot misappropriate the above benefit. The Respondent No. 1 has failed to produce any evidence which could show that he has passed on the above benefit till 31_03.2019 and hence he has been rightly investigated till the above date. Had he produced evidence to the effect that he has passed on the benefit before the above date the DGAP would not have investigated him beyond that date. Since, the DGAP had received the complaint against the above Respondent from the Standing Committee on 27.03.2019 he has correctly investigated him till 31.03.2019 as there was no evidence till that date t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove claim of the Respondent is without any basis and the hence. the same cannot be relied upon. 76. The Respondent has further claimed that in the cases of M/s Sharma Trading Company = 2018 (9) TMI 625 - THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY, M/s Hardcastle Restaurants = 2018 (11) TMI 1073 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY, M/s Unicharm India Pvt. Ltd. = 2019 (7) TMI 36 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY, M/s Excel Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. = 2019 (1) TMI 807 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY and M/s Harish Bakers & Confectionaries = 2018 (12) TMI 473 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY the period of investigation was restricted to 3 months by the DGAP which should also have been done in his case. In this respect it would be pertinent to note that the complaints in the above cases were received immediately after the reduction in the rate of tax was announced, therefore, the period of investigation was restricted to 3 months and the above parties were ordered to reduce their prices from the date of passing of the orders. However, there is no restriction on launching fresh investigation against them in case they have not passed on the benefit of tax reduction subsequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase after considering a very short period of 14 days. It would also be pertinent to mention that as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) each customer is entitled to receive the benefit of tax reduction on each purchase and hence the amount of benefit has to be accordingly computed. In case the comparison is made after calculation of the average base price after the rate reduction, the benefit of tax reduction would not be passed on to those customers who have purchased a particular product below the average base price but above the commensurate base price. Therefore, comparison of average base prices pre and post rate reduction would be hit by the provisions of Section 171 as well as Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the above claim of the Respondent is unacceptable. The Respondent has also cited the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in W.P. (C) 1780/2020 in the case of M/s Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. = 2020 (2) TMI 1184 - DELHI HIGH COURT and claimed that the order passed by this Authority in the above case had been stayed on the ground that the methodology applied to compute the profiteered amount was not correct. In this regar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the profiteered amount. The Respondent has also placed reliance on the case of M/s Lipton India Ltd. v. State of Tamilnadu 1973 (32) STC 194 (Mad.) = 1973 (1) TMI 85 - MADRAS HIGH COURT in his support, however, the same is not relevant in the facts of the present case. 79. The Respondent No. 1 has also averred that the profiteering should not be computed in respect of the line items in respect of which credit notes were issued by him. However, the Respondent has not supplied details of the credit notes which he has claimed to have issued due to return of the goods supplied by him or due to corrections made in the invoices. Hence, the above contention of the Respondent cannot be admitted. 80. The Respondent No. 1 has also pleaded that in the instant case there had been a reduction in the tax rate by 10% which as per the DGAP's methodology could be given effect by keeping the pre tax base price constant, which has resulted in a reduction of 7.81% in the cum tax price charged to the customers, therefore, the allegation of profiteering could only be to the extent of 7.81% and the business profits could not be added in it. The above argument of the Respondent is completely flawe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2.36 Crore computed as profiteering in respect of the SKUs manufactured in the above areas cannot be reduced from the profiteering. 82. The Respondent No. 1 has also contended that he had launched certain products with 50% free quantity as an introductory offer in July, 2017 which was withdrawn w.e.f. 15.11.2017. However. he had decided to continue giving discount @ 7.81% until April 2018, by which time the old stock had exhausted and he had started selling the new stock without introductory offer. He has also contended that once sale of the products had commenced without introductory offer, the prices of the products charged during the pre-rate reduction period no longer remained as comparable prices as the pre-rate reduction prices were highly discounted. Hence, no profiteering should be computed on these products where introductory offers were withdrawn. In this regard it would be relevant to state that the Respondent had only withdrawn the additional quantity of the products which was offered by him during the introductory offer but had not reduced their prices which had been increased by him w.e.f. 15.11.2017 and hence, comparable pre rate reduction prices were available ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bed Linen from India vide which it was held that the methodology of 'Zeroing' could not be applied and both the negative and positive margins were to be considered while applying the anti-dumping provisions. The above contention of the Respondent is not correct as no 'netting off' can be applied in the cases of profiteering as the benefit has to be passed on to each customer which has to be computed on each SKU. Netting off implies that the amount of benefit not passed on certain SKUs will be subtracted from the amount of benefit passed on other SKUs and the resultant amount shall be determined as the profiteered amount. If this methodology is applied the Respondent would be entitled to subtract the amount of benefit which he has not passed on one product from the amount of benefit which he has claimed to have passed on the other product, which will result in complete denial of benefit to the customer who has purchased a particular project on which no benefit or less benefit has been passed on. Hence, the methodology of 'netting off' cannot be applied in the case of FMCGs and the methodology of 'Zeroing' has to be applied as the customers have to be considered as individual benefic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he has also compelled them to pay additional GST on these excess base prices which they should not have paid. The Respondent has thus defeated the objective of both the Central and the State Governments to provide the benefit of rate reduction to the ordinary customers by sacrificing their tax revenue. The Respondent was legally not required to collect the excess GST and therefore, he has not only violated the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 but has also acted in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act as he has denied the benefit of tax reduction to the ordinary buyers by charging excess GST. Had he not charged the excess GST the customers would have paid less price while purchasing goods from the Respondent and hence the above amount has rightly been included in the profiteered amount as it denotes the amount of benefit denied by the above Respondent. It would also be appropriate to state here that price includes GST also. The profiteered amount can also not be paid from the GST deposited in the account of the Central and the State Governments by the Respondent as the above amount is required to be deposited in the CWFs as per the provisions of Rule 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent is trying to make out. The intent of the above Section is to pass on the benefit of tax reduction which has no connection with fixing of the prices of the products as both are independent of each other. One product may have different prices at different levels but it cannot have different prices at the same level. However the benefit of tax reduction has to be passed on at every level so that it ultimately reaches the ordinary customer. Since, the benefit of tax reduction has not been passed on by the above Respondent there is no question of its being passed down the supply chain. As already discussed above the benefit has to be passed on by way of reduction in prices and hence, it cannot be passed in any other manner as per the convenience of the Respondent. Therefore, all the above claims of the Respondent cannot be accepted. 90. The Respondent No. 1 has further submitted that the term profiteering' was not defined in the CGST Act or the rules made thereunder. He has also cited the definition of the term 'profiteering' as per the various dictionaries and contended that 'profiteering' referred to the excessive, exorbitant and unjustifiable profits arising due to suppl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent No. 1 has also submitted that the amount held as profiteered, should be refunded to his recipients (distributors) and should not be deposited in the CWFs as they were identifiable. In this connection it would be appropriate to refer to the intention of passing on the benefit of tax reduction. It has been explained several times by the Hon'ble Union Finance Minister as well as the GST Council which is a constitutional body constituted under 101st Amendment of the Constitution and has the Finance and Taxation Ministers of all the States as its members that the benefits of tax reduction and ITC should be passed on to the general consumers / buyers who bear the burden of tax and who are unorganized, voiceless and vulnerable liable to be exploited and denied the benefit by the big suppliers and manufacturers. The intention of reduction in the rate of tax is not to enrich the distributors / suppliers / retailers /big stores at the expense of the ordinary customers by passing on the benefit of tax reduction from the public exchequer. Therefore, the benefit is required to be passed on to the general recipients and hence, the profiteered amount has to be passed on to each of such c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies due to reduction in GST-reg. Reference is invited to this office letter No. WM-10(31)/2017 dated 29.9.2017 regarding declaration of MRP on unsold stock of pre-packaged commodities manufactured/packed/ Imported prior to 1st July, 2017. Subsequent to that, Government has reduced the rates of GST on certain specified items. Consequent upon that, permission is hereby granted under sub-rule (3) of rule 6 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, to affix an additional sticker or stamping or online printing for declaring the reduced MRP on the pre-packaged commodity. In this case also, the earlier Labelling/ Sticker of MRP will continue to be visible. (Emphasis supplied) 1. Further, this relaxation will also be applicable in the case of unsold stocks manufactured/packed imported after 1 st July, 2017 where the MRP would reduce due to reduction in the rate of GST post 1^st July, 2017. 2. This order would be applicable upto 31st December, 2017 Yours faithfully (B. N. Dixit) Director of Legal Metrology Tel: 01123389489 / Fax.-011-23385322 Email: dirwm-ca nic.in Copy to: All Industries/ Industry Associations/ Stake Holders ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be passed on to each and every buyer at each SKU/unit/service level by treating them equally. The above provision also mentions any supply" which connotes each taxable supply made to each recipient thereby making it evident that a supplier cannot claim that he has passed on more benefit to one customer on a particular product therefore he would pass less benefit or no benefit to another customer than what is actually due to that customer, on another product. Each customer is entitled to receive the benefit of tax reduction or ITC on each SKU or unit or service purchased by him subject to his eligibility. The term commensurate mentioned in the above Sub-Section provides the extent of benefit to be passed on by way of reduction in the price which has to be computed in respect of each product or unit or service based on the tax reduction or the additional ITC which has become available to a registered person. The benefit of additional ITC would depend on the comparison of the 1TC/CENVAT which was available to a builder in the pre-GST period with the ITC available to him in the post GST period w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Similarly, the benefit of tax reduction would depend upon the quantum o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of their tax revenue in the public interest and hence the suppliers are not required to pay even a single penny from their own pocket and therefore, they are bound to pass on the above benefits as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) which are abundantly clear, unambiguous, mandatory and legally enforceable. The above provisions also reflect that the true intent behind the above provision, made by the Central and the State legislatures in their respective GST Acts is to pass on the above benefits to the common buyers who bear the burden of tax. The Respondent is trying to deliberately mislead by claiming that he was required to carry out highly complex and exhaustive mathematical computations for passing on the benefit of tax reduction which he could not do in the absence of the principles, procedure and methodology framed under the above Act and the Rules. However, his claim is absolutely wrong as he was only required to maintain the same base prices of his products which he was charging before the tax reduction was notified w.e.f. 15.11.2017 and charge 18% GST instead of 28% on these base prices. Accordingly, MRPs of his impacted products were required to be the re-fixed and s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E COURT, Collector of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd. 1994 (71) ELT 324 = 1994 (2) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT, Vasta Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commr. 2018 (360) ELT 234 = 2018 (1) TMI 1437 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 (320) ELT 3 = 2015 (5) TMI 500 - SUPREME COURT, Anrak Aluminium Ltd. v. Commissioner 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 248 = 2017 (5) TMI 1200 - CESTAT HYDERABAD and Union of India v. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. 2017 (349) ELT 384 (SC) = 2013 (10) TMI 1467 - SUPREME COURT. In this connection it is mentioned that a notice was duly served on the Respondent and he was also given full opportunity to defend himself before this Authority and hence, the above cases are not being followed. 97. The Respondent No. 1 has also submitted that in absence of a judicial member, the constitution of this Authority was illegal. In this regard it is mentioned that there is no Judicial Member in such Authorities viz. the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the Authorities on Advance Rulings on the GST or the Excise and the Service Tax. All the proceedings are conducted by this Authority by applying the principles of natural justice and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e duties and powers of other such Authorities and hence they do not confer any special jurisdiction to this Authority. All the above Rules have been framed under Section 164 of the CGST Act, 2017 which has approval of the Parliament. They have further been notified by the Central Government on the recommendation of the GST Council which is a body established under 101st Amendment of the Constitution and has representation of all the States, Union Territories and the Central Government. Hence. the above Rules have been framed after thorough scrutiny and consultation at several levels and hence to claim that the above Rules amount to excessive delegation would be completely incorrect and untenable. 100. The Respondent No. 1 vide his written submissions dated 02.03.2020 has also submitted that the Interim Order No. 10/2020 dated 17.02.2020 passed by this Authority, rejecting his submissions on the issues relating to the reference from the Standing Committee to the DGAP for launching investigation against him under Rule 129 (1), required modification. He has referred to pars 54 and 55 of the above order and argued that the reminder dated 22.02.2016 issued by the Applicant No. 1 thro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplaint pertained to the Respondent No. 2 and had the invoices issued by him to the Respondent No. 2 in respect of the complained product been examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering it would have realized that he had passed on the benefit of tax reduction by giving discount of 7.81% and had maintained the pre rate reduction base prices. He has also claimed to have enclosed copies of invoices as Annexure-9 with Volume 3 of his written submissions dated 02.03.2020. Perusal of Volume 3 shows that no Annexure-9 has been attached with it. However, perusal of page 159 of the above Volume shows that the Respondent No. 1 has issued a tax invoice on 24.01.2018 in favour of the Respondent No. 2 which shows that he has supplied "PA Asl Good Morning Splash 50 ml After Shave Lotion" at the base price of Rs. 70.40 per unit whereas as per his own admission made in Table supra prepared by him, the pre rate reduction base price of the above product was Rs. 64.90 per unit, therefore, he was charging Rs. 83.07 (64.90+28% GST) on the above product before the tax reduction and after the rate reduction he was required to charge total price of Rs. 76.58 (64.90+18% GST) from the Responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....General of Safeguards) was purportedly done under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017, however, the said rule was ultra vires of the CGST Act, 2017 as it nowhere envisaged constitution of any such body and therefore, the investigation carried out by the DGAP was illegal. The Respondent No. 2 has also cited the law settled in the cases of Addl. District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Admin. v. Siri Ram (2000) 5 SCC 451 = 2000 (5) TMI 1069 - SUPREME COURT and State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. P. Krishnamurthy & Ors. (2006) SCC 517 = 2006 (3) TMI 741 - SUPREME COURT in his support. On the insistence of the Respondent No. 2 both the above contentions have been carefully considered and found to be untenable by this Authority vide its Interim Order No. 10/2020 dated 17.02.2020 and hence, they are not being discussed in the present order. 103. The Respondent No. 2 has also mentioned that he was one of the distributors of the Respondent No. 1 for supply of goods to the Modern Trade and all the supplies made by him were negotiated and finalized between the Respondent No. 1 and the Modern Traders and he had no role in the fixation of the prices relating to the supplies of goods to his customers. Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the purchase prices post 15th November, 2017 • Post sale discounts offered by the Respondent No. 2 after affecting sales (impact of Debit / Credit Notes). In this connection it would be appropriate to mention that the issue of collection of GST and its deposit in the Government account has been discussed in detail above and hence, the same is not being discussed here. The Respondent No 2 has also stated that the Respondent No.1 had increased the prices of his products w.e.f. 15.11.2017 and therefore, he was forced to increase his own prices and hence, he was not liable for profiteering. In this connection it is mentioned that the Respondent was required to maintain the pre rate reduction base prices which he had failed to do and therefore, he is also liable for profiteering as he was the registered person in terms of Section 171 (1) of the above Act charged with the responsibility of passing on the benefit of tax reduction. He has further stated that he had passed on the benefit of tax reduction by offering discounts. However, as has been discussed above the above benefit cannot be passed through arbitrary discounts as the same is required to be passed only by wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same is required to be passed on due to the concession granted by the Central and the State Governments out of their own tax revenue and nothing is required to be paid out of his own account. Therefore, the above argument of the Respondent is not tenable. 111 The Respondent No. 2 has also stated that no profiteering could be attributed to him, since the Respondent No 1 had committed profiteering by selling the products at a higher price, hence further selling of the said products at a higher price could not be recomputed in the hands of the Respondent No. 2 which would result in double computing of the profiteered amount. In this connection it would be relevant to mention that profiteering in respect of the Respondent No.2 has been computed on the prices which he has charged to his buyers by increasing his base prices which has no connection with the prices charged by the Respondent No. 1 to his buyers. Therefore, there is no question of double computing of the profiteered amount and hence the above contention of the Respondent is not correct 112. He has further stated that the basic premise of profiteering calculation was that the same product should have been sold to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. Gujarat 24 26,96,883 41,05,036 68,01,918 13. Haryana 6 14,01,212 50,76,462 64,77,674 14. Himachal Pradesh 2 2,52,766 24,617 2,77,384 15. Jammu and Kashmir 1 2,19,967 65,582 2,85,549 16. Jharkhand 20 13,68,148 4,66,696 18,34,843 17. Karnataka 29 56,54,964 94,82,431 1,51,37,395 18. Kerala 32 57,65,995 9,28,745 66,94,740 19. Madhya Pradesh 23 24,39,065 40,82,573 65,21,637 20. Maharashtra 27 1,59,36,419 2,91,66,764 4,51,03,183 21. Manipur 14 1,27,663 - 1,27,663 22. Meghlaya 17 2,16,513 - 2,16,513 23. Mizoram 15 5,059 - 5,059 24. Nagaland 13 57,540 - 57,540 25. Odisha 21 30,59,079 8,01,378 38,60,457 26. Puducherry 34 2,89,577 4,49,656 7,39,233 27. Punjab 3 13,83,199 10,95,085 24,78,285 28. Rajasthan 8 33,14,776 16,04,101 49,18,877 29. Sikkim 11 17,711 - 17,711 30. Tamil Nadu 33 98,42,417 78,17,703 1,76,60,119 31. Telangana 36 34,05,733 ....