TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td.), In the application, it was alleged that despite reduction in the rate of GST from 16% to 5% w.e.f 15.11.2017, the Respondent had not passed on the commensurate benefit of tax reduction as he had increased the base prices of his products. A summary sheet of the extent of profiteering was prepared by the State Tax Officer, Mumbai which was also enclosed with the recommendation of the Standing Committee. On receipt of the said reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, a notice under Rule 129 (3) was issued on 10.07.2017 by the DGAP, calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of reduction in GST rate w.e.f, 15.11.2017, had not been passed on 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 supporting documents. The Respondent was also allowed to inspect the replied upon non-confidential evidence/information which formed the basis of the investigation between 17.07.2019 and 19.07.2019, which was however not availed of by the Respondent. 2. The DGAP has reported that the period covered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on Anti-Profiteering, various replies of the Respondent and the documents/evidence placed on record, it emerged that the main issues for determination were whether the rate of GST on the service supplied by the Respondent was reduced from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15-11.2017 and if so, whether the benefit of such reduction in the rate of GST had been passed on by the Respondent to his recipients, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 7. The DGAP has further stated that the GST rate on the restaurant service has been reduced from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 along with the condition that no ITC on the goods and services used in supplying the service would be available to the Respondent, vide Notification No. 46/2017-CentraI Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017. Since it was a case of reduction in the rate of tax, it was important to examine the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, to ascertain whether the present case was a case of profiteering or not. Section 171 (1) reads as "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 or commensurate reduction in prices. "Thus, the legal requirement of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17 and not up to 14.11.2017. The DGAP has done this because there was no reversal of ITC on the closing stock of inputs/input services and capital goods as on 14.11.2017. by the Respondent, which was required under the provisions of Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 42 and 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017. 10. The DGAP in his Report has also intimated that the ratio of ITC to the Net Taxable Turnover has been taken as the basis for determining the impact of denial of ITC that was available till 31.10.2017. The DGAP has found that the ITC amounting to Rs. 3,58,05/-was available during the period from July 2017 to October 2017 which worked out to be 9.19% of Net Taxable Turnover of the Respondent from the restaurant service supplies amounting to Rs. 38,98,737/- during the same period, Further, with effect from 15.11.2017, the rate of tax on restaurant service was reduced from 18% to 5% and no ITC was available to the Respondent, A summary of the computation of the ratio of ITC to the taxable turnover as furnished by the DGAP is given in Table-A below:- Table-A (Amount in Rs.) Particulars Jul.-17 Aug.-17 Sept.- 2017 Oct.-2017 Total ITC Avail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1/A-16229 dated 15.11.2017 140 Total profiteering (I=H-G) 16.24 13. The DGAP has further stated that based on the aforesaid pre and post rate reduction prices of the products; the impact of denial of ITC; and the details of outward supplies (other than zero-rated, nil rated and exempted supplies) during the period from 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019, the amount of net higher sales realization due to increase in the base prices of the service supplied after netting off the impact of denial of ITC or in other words, the profiteered amount worked out to be Rs. 41,93,431/- including the GST on the base profiteered amount for the period of investigation, which was detailed in Annexure-14 of his Report. It was also stated that the service has been supplied by the Respondent in the State of Maharashtra only. 14. The DGAP has also claimed that the allegation of profiteering by way of either increasing the base prices of the products while maintaining the same selling prices or by way of not reducing the selling prices of the products commensurately, despite the reduction in the rate of GST from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 stood confirmed against the Respondent and the extent of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Aloo Patty 48 INR 11025 INR 229.69 INR-22.76 INR 252.45 Case 2:- Suppose if same discount was offered on 16.11.2017 instead of 03.11.2017 SL Product Name Total Qty. Total sales Realization Average sales Loss of ITC @9.91% Total Commensurate Price 1 Aloo Patty sub (12") 48 INR 11760 INR- 245 INR-24.28 INR 269.28 Impact sheet due to inclusion of discounted sales Average price if discount offered on 3^rd Nov 2017-(A) Average price if discount offered on 16^th Nov 2017-(B) Differenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r calculating the profiteering amount. e. Profiteering amount should be calculating up to the next price revision after post GST rate reduction, considering that after GST rate reduction any change of price is due to the business/commercial reasons only :- That the DGAP has calculated the profiteered amount of Rs. 41,93,431/- starting from 15.11.2017 till June, 2019 for 20 months and all the price revisions made after 15.11.2017 have been considered as part of the profiteered amount He has completely ignored that the Respondent has right to increase his prices on account of various reasons other than tax which were also required to be considered for fixing the product prices. f. That the alleged profiteered amount has substantiality increased as compared to the total turnover during the period from February 2019 to June 2019 because in the month of February 2019, there was revision in the product prices to meet out the general inflation and other expenses. Before February 2019, the profiteered percentage was 11.51% of the turnover, however, in the months starting from February 2019 to June 2019, the profiteered percentage was 14.70% of the turnover i.e. ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es after a lapse of a substantial time period of approx. 15 months from the date of rate reduction to meet out the general inflation and other business related expenditure. The DGAP was working like a price controlling authority and there were no guidelines in the statute itself that prescribed the mechanism to be followed by the business for revision of the prices and up to what period prices of products should not be increased. Therefore the profiteered amount should not be calculated on the increased price of the products if price have been increased by him after considerable time gap, considering the legal and settled fact that fixation of prices was fundamental right of the business and there were no rules/regulations prescribed under the law for increasing the product prices after the rate reduction. i. 5% additional GST amount added on profiteered amount should be removed:- The GST of 5% which has been paid to the Government was based on the base price charged to the customers. Since, according to the DGAP the base price should have been reduced accordingly, the GST amount payable should also be less than as compared to the actual GST amount collected from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sales. Post 14.11.2017 i.e. after the rate reduction, his cost of loyalty has increased by 1.769%. Calculation of increase in the royalty has been furnished in the below mentioned Table:- (Amount in Rs.) Particulars Before 15.11.2017 (A) Post 15.11.2017 (B) Impact (A-B)% Basis Price - Sample for illustration 100 112.38 Add :- GST@ 18%- before 14^th nov Add:- GST@5% Post 14^th nov 18 5.63 Total Invoice Value 118 118 Royalty expenses @8% on Net Sales 8 8.99 Add:- GST @12% on Royalty Charged by Subway India 0.96 1.079 Advertisement Expenses @5% on Net Sale 4.5% 5.06 Add:- GST@18% on advertisement charged by subway India 0.81 0.91 Total Invoice Value including GST 14.27 16.039 1.769% k. That the DGAP while calculating the profiteering amount, has considered the base prices of the products without considering the increase in the royalty expenses which was directly calculated on the basis of net sales. This did not come under the purview of ITC loss. Due to this increase i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....551.94 26,443.96 Apr 19 3,04,301.53 2,79,730.22 24,571.31 May 19 3,04,779.20 2,80,464.54 24,314.66 June 19 2,87,889.74 2,64,935.85 22,953.88 41,93,431.44 37,83,534.28 4,09,897.15 m. Increase in delivery expense paid to Online E- Commerce Platforms should be considered in calculation of base price after rate reduction:- That the online aggregators have given a large customer base to the restaurants over and above the already existing dining-out facility. Considering the above benefit the Respondent had started working with the aggregators like Swiggy and Uber Eats etc. from January 2018 onwards and under the service agreement with the aggregators he was paying 12-15% service fee for delivery of the products to them. The Respondent's online sales as compared to his total sales were around 45% due to change in the business model. Without online delivery facility there was minimal chance of getting the orders from the customers. During the subject period, the Respondent had paid Rs. 20,09,314/- as delivery fee including the GST amount of Rs. 3,06,505/- ITC of Rs. 3.06,505/- has not been considered while calculating loss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as incorrectly applied a methodology similar to the Zeroing methodology" which was used by the anti-dumping authorities in certain countries like European Union (EU). The Government of India had taken a stand against such methodology at the World Trade Organization (WTO) and argued that while determining the dumping margins, all SKUs should be taken in to consideration rather than only those which showed positive dumping- In the Report WT/DS141/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 in which Indian exporters faced an anti-dumping action by the EU as the exporters were exporting different varieties of bed linen to the EIJ, the Government of India had objected to this approach of the European Commission and the matter was taken to the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO which held in favour of Government of India. In the Appeal filed by the EU before the Appellate Body, the Appellate Body held that practice of not netting off positive dumping margins and negative dumping margins was not correct. In the present case, the Respondent on few products had not only passed the benefits by reduction i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... -1,88,483 1,88,483 2,28,862 o. Benefits passed to the customers where price is zero should be considered appropriately:- That he has incurred total amount of Rs- 2,94749/- on account of items where zero base prices were charged under various kind of sale promotion schemes such as free items to loyal customers etc. The DGAP has not considered these benefits while calculating the profiteered amount as this was also a benefit passed on to the customers. Therefore, the calculated profiteered amount should be reduced further by Rs. 2,94,749/-. The Respondent has furnished the product wise summary as has been mentioned in the Table given below:- Details or Free Items with Impact SL Item Name Total Impact Value of Free Items SL Item Name Total Impact Value of Free Items Total Impact 1. 500ml Iced Tea BtlDrk 100.00 14 Corn & Peas Sub 27,680.00 27,780.00 2. Aloo Patty Sub 8,160.00 15 Hara Bhara Kabab Sub 5,880.00 14,040.00 3. B.M.T. Sub 1,950.00 16 Maxican Bean Patty Sub 27,580.00 29,530.00 4. Chatpata Chana Patty Sub 1,120.00 17 Paneer Tikka Sub 14,880.00 16,000.00 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conomic and social conditions, cost of the products, capital expenditure, inflation in man power cost and general year on year inflation etc. played an important role at the time of fixing of the prices of the products. The GST law was introduced in July 2017 and the statue did not prescribe any method of computation by which the profiteering amount could be computed. Tax for the restaurant service has been changed within a short period of 4 months i.e. with effect from 15.112017. The impact of change should be considered only for a certain specific period. In the present case, considering the nature of the business, the period for the calculation of profiteering amount should be around 4 months i.e. up to March 2018 from the date of rate change or till any change in prices after 15.11.2017 considering that revision of prices of the products post GST rate reduction was purely due to business reasons. s. Considered approach should be adopted and request to drop the proceedings:- That there were 67 Subway brand outlets in Mumbai itself and some of the stores were few meters away from the store of the Respondent. To keep sanity of the price in the market and sustain in the bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....019 which was a reasonable period of time. Further, the legislative intent behind Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, was to pass on the benefit of tax rate reduction by way of commensurate reduction in prices. In other words, every recipient of goods or services has to get the due benefit from the supplier- Every supplier in the supply chain was legally required to pass on the benefit of tax rate reduction by maintaining the base price and charging GST at the reduced rate on such base price. Every supplier of goods and services was free to increase the price of his supply depending upon the various components affecting the cost of production/supply, But under the provisions of the Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, no supplier could increase the base prices of the products overnight in such a manner that even with reduction in the rate of tax, the cum-tax selling price would remain unchanged. Therefore, there wasn't any violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India as the DGAP has not attempted to examine or question the base prices as Section 171 did not mandate control over the prices of the goods or services as they were to be determined by the supplier. Section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m after rate reduction also Hence there appeared to be no increase in the expenses as there was no increase in the percentage which was fixed as per the franchise agreement. Moreover, in respect of GST paid by the Respondent on these expenses, he was availing ITC of the same before rate reduction but after rate reduction, the Respondent could not avail the ITC of the same in terms of Notification No. 46/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017. Therefore, this impact of denial of ITC has duly been considered and accordingly ratio of ITC to Net Outward Taxable Turnover was calculated and the Respondent could have increased thebase prices by that extent during the post GST rate reduction period i.e. from 15.11.2017 onwards, in order to negate the impact of ITC denial. Therefore, the benefit of ITC loss has been given to the Respondent. Further, the case of M/s. KRBL was different as the pre-GST rate of tax was nil and for the first time tax rate of 5% was imposed on the impugned product e, Para 5:- That during the investigation, the Respondent did not make any such submission. Therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence, this claim of the Respondent was not acceptable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... h. Para 8:- That the MRP was the maximum price at which goods could be sold in retail. The value of transaction between the manufacturer and the wholesaler or the wholesaler and the retailer was invariably less than the MRP. Therefore, regardless of whether MRP was marked on the product or not. the pre and post tax rate reduction transaction values were compared to determine profiteering. There was no significance of MRP in establishing profiteering. The total impact of ITC denial which included the loss of ITC in respect of MRP goods also, has been duly considered and accordingly ratio of ITC to Net Outward Taxable Turnover has been calculated for the pre rate reduction period and hence the claim of the Respondent has no significance at this point of time. i. Para 9:- That based on the facts and circumstances of this case, the investigation was carried out covering the period from 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019. 18. The Respondent. vide his submissions dated 01.06,2020 sent through e-mail dated 01.06.2020, has filed his contentions against the above Supplementary Report of the DGAP. upon perusal of the submissions dated 01.06.2020 made by the Respondent, it is obser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, on the restaurant service being supplied by the Respondent, vide Notification No, 46/2017-central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 without benefit of ITC. Therefore, the Respondent is liable to pass on the benefit of tax reduction to his customers in terms of Section 171 (1) of the above Act. It is also apparent that the present investigation has been carried out w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019. 21. It is also evident that the Respondent has been dealing with a total of 351 items during the period from 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019. Upon comparing the average selling prices as per the details submitted by the Respondent for the period from 01.08.2017 to 14.11.2017 and the actual selling prices post rate reduction w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2017 the DGAP has reported that the GST rate of 5% has been charged w.e.f. 15.11.2017 however the base prices of 152 products have been increased more than their commensurate prices w.e.f. 15.11.2017 which established that because of the increase in the base prices the cum-tax prices paid by the consumers were not reduced commensurately, inspite of the reduction in the GST rate. 22. While comparing the average pre rate redu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... less or equal to the denial of ITC or these were new products launched post-GST rate reduction. 24. On the basis of the aforesaid pre and post reduction GST rates, the impact of denial of ITC and the details of outward supplies (other than zero rated. nil rated and exempted supplies) during the period from 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019, the amount of net higher sale realization due to increase in the base prices of the products, despite the reduction in the GST rate from 18% to 5% with denial of ITC or the profiteered amount has come to Rs. 41,93,431/- including the GST on the base profiteered amount. The details of the computation have been given by the DGAP in Annexure-14 of his Report. 25. The methodology adopted by the DGAP for computation of the profiteered amount by comparing the average base prices of the products in respect of which the rate of GST was reduced from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 without benefit of ITC 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 prices prevalent during....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f goods or services or both shall be the transaction value, which is the price actually paid or payable for the said supply of goods or services or both where the supplier and the recipient of the supply are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the supply." Further, Section 15 (3) (a) Of the above Act also provides that the value of the supply shall not include any discount which was given before or at the time of the supply if such discount had been duly recorded in the invoice issued in respect of such supply and thus, the GST was chargeable on the actual transaction value after excluding any discount (conditional as well as unconditional) and therefore, actual transaction value has been rightly considered by the DGAP for computation Of profiteering. Discounted sales made on a single day on 03.11.2017 have no effect on the average base prices as has been claimed by the Respondent as discounts do not form part of the transaction value which has been compared with the post rate reduction transaction value for arriving at the profiteered amount. The benefit of tax reduction can also not be passed though discounts as it can be passed only by way of commensurate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded that right to trade was a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and the right to trade included the right to determine prices which could not be taken away without any explicit authority under the law, Therefore, this form of price control was a violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. In this connection it would be relevant to mention that the Respondent has full right to fix his prices under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution but he has no right to appropriate the benefit of tax reduction under the garb of the above right. The DGAP has not acted in any way as a price controlling authority as he does not have the mandate to do so. Under Section 171 read with Rule 129 of the above Rules the DGAP has only been mandated to investigate whether both the benefits of tax reduction and ITC which are the sacrifices of precious tax revenue made from the kitty of the Central and the State Governments have been passed on to the end consumers who bear the burden of the tax. The intent of this provision is the welfare of the consumers who are voiceless, unorganized and vulnerable, The DGAP has nowhere interfered with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been considered by the DGAP. In this connection it would be appropriate to mention that there has been no change in the rates of royalty and advertisement charges in the post rate reduction period and hence, they have no impact on the base prices of the Respondent These charges were already built in the base prices during the pre rate reduction period and hence, they cannot be added again in the base prices- The Respondent has already been given the benefit of denial of ITC on both the above expenses during the computatation of the profiteered amount as no profiteered amount has been calculated on the prices which included increase upto 9.19% due to denial of benefit of ITC, Moreover, these charges are also bound to increase as the Respondent has increased his base prices by more than the permissible limit of 9.19% which he cannot claim to exclude from the profiteered amount. Therefore, the above claim of the Respondent cannot be accepted. 31. The Respondent has also relied upon the decision of this Authority given in the case of Kumar Gandhrav v. M/s. KRBL Limited (Case Number 03/2018 dated 04.05.2018) = 2018 (5) TMI 760 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY to support his ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laimed to have passed on which will result in complete denial of benefit to the customers who were entitled to receive it It has to be kept in mind that every recipient/ customer is entitled to the benefit of the tax rate reduction by way of reduced prices and Section 171 does not offer the Respondent to suo moto decide on any other modality to pass on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to his recipients. Therefore. any benefit of tax rate reduction passed on to a particular recipient or customer cannot be adjusted against the benefit of tax rate reduction that ought to accrue to another recipient or customer. Therefore. the above contention of the Respondent is not tenable. 34. The Respondent has also alleged that the DGAP has ignored the negative values and resorted to 'zeroing' to compute higher profiteering which was used by the anti-dumping authorities in certain countries which was opposed by the Government of India before the WTO and vide Report No. WT/DS141/AB/R dated 1.3.2001 of the Appellate Body of WTO, regarding Anti-Dumping Duties on imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India, the stand of the Indian Government was accepted and it was held that the practic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been increased due to the denial of ITC needed to be removed from the profiteered amount In this regard, we find no ground to deviate from the submissions of the DGAP that the MRP was the maximum price at which the goods could be sold in retail. The value of transaction between the manufacturer and the wholesaler or the wholesaler and the retailer was invariably less than the MRP. Therefore, to determine the profiteering in respect of the MRP based items, the pre and post rate reduction transaction values were compared by the DGAP, regardless of whether the MRP was marked on the product or not. The DGAP has arrived at the profiteered amount by calculating the total impact of ITC denial which included the loss of ITC in respect of the MRP based items also, Therefore, MPR has no impact on the computation of the profiteered amount, Hence, the above plea of the Respondent is not maintainable. 37. The Respondent has further contended that the CGST Act, 2017, the CGST Rules, 2017 and the Methodology and Procedure notified by this Authority did not prescribe the period up to which profiteered amount is to be calculated. Therefore, keeping in mind the perishable nature of the items ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it of construction or service to every buyer and in case they are not passed on, the quantum of denial of these benefit or the profiteered amount has to be computed for which investigation has to be conducted in respect of all such SKUs/units/services by the DGAP. What would be the 'profiteered amount' has been clearly defined in Sub-Section 171 (3A) and the explanation attached to Section 171. These benefits can also not be passed on at the entity/organisation/branch/invoice/product/ business vertical level as they have 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-Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not be similar to the other project. Therefore, no set procedure or methodology can be framed for determining the benefit of additional ITC which has to be passed on to the buyers of the units, Moreover, this Authority under Rule 126 of the CGST Rules. 2017 has been empowered to determine' Methodology & Procedure and not to 'prescribe' it. Similarly, the facts of the cases relating to the sectors of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), restaurant service, construction service and cinema service are completely different from each other and therefore, the mathematical methodology adopted in the case of one sector cannot be applied in the other sector. Moreover, both the above benefits have been given by the Central as well as the State Governments as a special concession out 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 provisions, made by the Central a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e intervening night of 14.11.2017/ 1511.2017 when the rate reduction had happened which had forced him to increase his prices exactly equal or more then the reduction in the rate of tax, Such an uncanny coincidence is unheard off and hence there is no doubt that the Respondent has increased his prices for appropriating the benefit of tax reduction to deny the above benefit to his customers. Therefore, the above claim of the Respondent cannot be accepted. 40. The Respondent has also argued that the Maharashtra State Screening Committee had forwarded the complaint to the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering vide letter dated 21.02.2019 for further action. The Standing Committee had examined and referred the complaint for investigation by the DGAP in its meeting held on 15.05.2019. However, in the present case, the time limit of 2 months within which the Standing Committee was to examine the online complaint had expired on 20.04.2019. Hence, the investigation of the issue by the Standing Committee was beyond the statutory period of limitation as prescribed under the Rule 128 (1) of CGST Rules, Perusal of the record shows that the Maharashtra State Screening Committee on Anti-Pro....