TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09/-against the Respondent for the period 15-11-2017 to 31-3-2018. The Authority vide his Order no. 25/2018 dated 27-12-2018 had determined the profiteered amount as Rs. 3,43,109/- and further, directed the DGAP to further investigate the quantum of profiteering for the period subsequent to 31-3-2018. 2. The DGAP in his report dated 25-1-2021 had inter alia, stated that: a. The DGAP vide his Report dated 8-8-2018, furnished to the Authority under rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had conducted an investigation and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to the customers by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the product sold by him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f profiteering which the Respondent had made thereafter and submitted his report accordingly. Hence, for the compliance of the same, letter dated 7-1-2019 was issued to M/s. Raj & Company to submitted details. f. The period covered by the current investigation was from 1-4-2018 to 31-12-2018. g. The Respondent submitted his replies to the said Notice, vide letters and e-mails dated 14-1-2019, 5-4-2019, 28-8-2020, 21-9-2020, 25-9-2020, 10-10-2020, 16-10-2020, 5-11-2020, 20-11-2020, 21-12-2020, 23-12-2020, 29-12-2020 & 1-1-2021. h. Vide the aforementioned e-mails/letters, the Respondent submitted the following documents/information: i. Details of invoice-wise outward taxa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of all these products were detailed as Annex-XIV. l. In order to explain the methodology adopted for determining the amount of profiteering, an illustration was given in the Table below, in which the calculation in respect of a specific item Le. LP HEX 6 OIL SHAMPOO 360 ML sold during the month of November, 2017 (pre GST rate reduction) was taken. The average base price of the said product was obtained by dividing the total taxable value with total quantity of this item sold during the period 1-11-2017 to 14-11-2017. The average base price of this item was then compared with the actual selling price of the same item sold post-GST rate reduction i.e. on or after 1-4-2018 as illustrated in the table below: Sl. No. Desc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 dated 24-12-2018 and thus the benefit of reduction in GST rate was not passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the price, in terms of section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The profiteering of the remaining transactions had been carried out in the same manner. From the sales details submitted by the Respondent, 201 products were sold in the period from 1-7-2017 to 14-11-2017. The total amount of profiteering with respect to these 201 products for the period 1-4-2018 to 31-12-2018, comes to Rs. 3,31,879/-. m. In this case, the allegation of the Applicant No. 1 was that the base prices of the subject goods were increased when there was a reduction in the GST rate from 28% to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. and the Authority has recently passed an Order against them. 4. We have carefully considered the Report furnished by the DGAP, the clarifications filed by him and the records of the case. There is no dispute with regard to the reduction of the tax in respect of subject products supplied by the Respondent with effect from 15-11-2017. The Government by Notification No. 41/2017-CT (Rate), dated 14-11-2017 has reduced rates on subject products. In view of the above said facts and the records, the Authority has observed that the Respondent, M/s. Raj & Company was a distributor of M/s. L Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. The Authority finds that M/s. L Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. was investigated by the DGAP for allegations of profiteering and not passed on ....