TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Credit (ITC) to her which was available to the Respondent on implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Vide the above mentioned Report dated 06.08.2021, the DGAP has inter-alia stated that :- a. The Applicant No. 1 had submitted that she had paid Rs. 3,290/- towards annual subscription in January, 2018 and prior to that she had paid half yearly subscription in June, 2017 (pre-GST) for the Direct to Home (DTH) services. The said application had been forwarded to State Screening Committee for examination. b. The Karnataka State Screening Committee while forwarding the application to the Standing Committee for further examination and necessary action observed that "The complainant has only intimated that she has paid an amount of Rs. 3,290/- post introduction of GST during January 2018 but has not provided details of the amounts paid prior to introduction of GST. However, it appears prima facie that the benefit of higher ITC available subsequent to levy of GST has to be passed on by the service provider in the form of reduced subscription charges". The aforesaid reference was then examined by the Standing Committ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f furtherance of his business and the said amount shall be credited to the electronic credit ledger of such person". As seen from above, it implied that the taxes charged on any supply of goods or services or both were eligible to be taken as credit unlike the pre GST regime wherein the taxes such as State VAT/Sales Tax, Central Sales Tax, Purchase Tax, Entry Tax, Additional duties of customs (SAD) etc., were not eligible for service provider to be taken as credit. It implied that there was a benefit of credit of Input Tax to such extent as was not allowed in the pre GST regime. f. The period covered by the current investigation was from 01.07.2017 to 30.04.2020. However, the Respondent vide his e-mail dated 06.11.2020 against reply to Point No.3 (Price List of all regular channel packages, add ons, applicable taxes, details of their monthly subscriptions and date of launch of the package for the period April 2016 to April 2020) submitted that "Post February, 2019 the Telecom Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as "TRAI") Orders have specified the pricing regulations based on network carriage fees and channel package price which are being followed by us. Thus we ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove relief has been extended and the period from 14.03.2021 till further orders also stands excluded in computing the limitation period as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order dated 27.04.2021 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No. 3/2020. i. In response to the DGAP's Notice dated 12.06.2020, the Respondent submitted his reply vide mails / letters dated 24.06.2020, 27.08.2020, 30.09.2020, 06.11.2020, 09.03.2021, 12.03.2021, 24.03.2021, 17.04.2021, 20.04.2021, 26.04.2021, 10.06.2021, 22.07.2021. Vide the aforementioned letters/e-mails, the Respondent submitted the following documents/information: i. Copies of GSTR-1 Returns for the period July, 2017 to April, 2020 for Karnataka. ii. Copies of GSTR-3B Returns for the period July, 2017 to April, 2020 for Karnataka. iii. Copy of Electronic Credit Ledger for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.04.2020 for Karnataka. iv. Centralised Tran-1 for the period July, 2017 to December, 2017. v. Copies of ST-3 Returns for the period April, 2016 to June, 2017 on PAN India basis. vi. Details of turnover, output tax liability/GST payable and ITC availed and also the turn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 which reads as "Provided also that no credit of the additional duty leviable under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, shall be utilized for payment of service tax on any output service". Further, as seen from the VAT returns submitted by the Respondent in FORM VAT 100, it is observed that the Respondent has not taken credit of Input Tax under Karnataka VAT Act, 2003 in as much as it was classified as service and not the sale of goods to attract payment of VAT. n. In response to the Notice of Initiation of investigation dated 12.06.2020, the Respondent vide his submissions dated 24.06.2020 submitted that "We also categorically would like to mention that the complainant 'Sweety Agarwal' specified in your good self's notice is not our DTH subscriber and we haven't rendered any services to such customer. Further, on retrieval of the details pertaining to the subscriber ID 1088222136 specified in your notice, it is observed that the same belongs to our subscriber Mr. Sumit Garg and there is no such complaint received by us from such registered subscriber. In support of the above and as a factual evidence, we are attaching herewith such subscribers private....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2004 (23 of 2004); (vii) The Secondary and Higher Education Cess on Excisable goods leviable under section 136 read with section 138 of the Finance Act, 2007 (22 of 2007); (viii) The additional Duty leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, equivalent to the Duty of Excise specified under clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) (vi) and (via); (ix) The additional Duty leviable under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, Provided that a provider of taxable service shall not be eligible to take credit of such additional Duty; (x) The additional Duty of Excise leviable under section 157 of the Finance Act, 2003 (32 of 2003); (xi) The Service Tax leviable under section 66 of the Finance Act; (xii) The Education Cess on taxable services leviable under section 91 read with section 95 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 (23 of 2004); and (xiii) The Secondary and Higher Education Cess on taxable services leviable under section 136 read with section 140 of the Finance Act, 2007 (22 of 2007); and (xiv) The additional Duty of Excise leviable under section 85 of Finance Act, 2005 (18 of 2005) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prices. q. From the above, it was observed that prior to 01.07.2017, i.e., before GST was introduced, the Respondent was not eligible to avail CENVAT credit of VAT/CST/Purchase Tax/Entry Tax etc; paid on the inputs or capital goods purchased indigenously and the credit of SAD paid on the inputs or capital goods imported in as much as the Respondent was not engaged in the sale of goods. Further, post-GST, the Respondent could avail the ITC of GST paid on all the inputs and capital goods including the VAT/SAD/CST/Purchase Tax etc. which got subsumed in GST. From the bifurcated information of turn over submitted by the Respondent vide email dated 20.04.2021 for the period April, 2016 to January, 2019 and ITC submitted by the Respondent vide email dated 26.04.2021 for the period April, 2016 to January, 2019 specific to the supply of DTH (Broadcasting) services and the details of the credit of VAT/SAD foregone, ITC availed by him pre GST, the percentage of benefit and thereby the amount of benefit consequent to the introduction of GST, during the post-GST (June, 2017 to January, 2019) period was calculated and has been furnished in Table-'A' below and the state-wise bifurcation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assam 2,66,31,92,951 2.92 13,16,73,586 4 Bihar 1,05,36,23,972 1.16 5,20,93,276 5 Chandigarh 37,80,04,113 0.42 1,86,89,279 6 Chhattisgarh 1,12,41,58,363 1.23 5,55,80,638 7 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 1,55,82,255 0.02 7,70,418 8 Daman & Diu 97,26,383 0.01 4,80,892 9 Delhi 3,93,90,83,514 4.33 19,47,56,167 10 Goa 55,43,64,229 0.61 2,74,08,876 11 Gujarat 2,95,15,09,092 3.24 14,59,28,513 12 Haryana 2,38,32,85,341 2.62 11,78,34,394 13 Himachal Pradesh 46,69,50,017 0.51 2,30,86,943 14 Jammu & Kashmir 39,08,55,863 0.43 1,93,24,696 15 Jharkhand 89,99,06,282 0.99 4,44,93,166 16 Karnataka 6,17,84,95,484 6.79 30,54,77,174 17 Kerala 79,82,50,277 0.88 3,94,67,090 18 Madhya Pradesh 1,47,85,93,207 1.62 7,31,04,605 19 Maharashtra 39,57,42,37,026 43.46 1,95,66,29,427 20 Manipur 24,06,99,977 0.26 1,19,00,688 21 Meghalaya 34,16,29,609 0.38 1,68,90,851 22 Mizoram 2,07,48,348 0.02 10,25,840 23 Nagaland 34,33,42,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rent plans at different points of time, it was not possible to identify all the recipients and the profiteered amount to be passed on to them. In the instant case on the basis of the submissions made by the Applicant No. 1, it appeared that the Applicant No. 1 was an interested party and was not a direct subscriber of M/s. Tata Sky. Therefore, it was proposed to deposit the profiteered amount in respect of the Applicant No. 1 and all other subscribers in the consumer welfare fund as envisaged in Rule of 133(3)(c) of CGST Rules, 2017. s. In view of the aforementioned findings, it appeared that the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, requiring that "any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices", had been contravened by the Respondent in the present case. 3. The above Report had been carefully considered by this Authority and a Notice dated 10.05.2022 was issued to the Respondent to explain why Report dated 31.03.2021 furnished by the DGAP should not be accepted and his liability for profiteering in violation of the provisions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on is payable for the supply of a service, the person to whom the service is rendered, ..." (iv) The Respondent without prejudice submits that even otherwise Section 171 provides that the recipient is the only person who can file a written complaint against an assessee who has allegedly profiteered and not by any person. The Applicant No. 1 admittedly was not the subscriber of the Respondent and did not have any locus standi to file the present written complaint against the Respondent. (v) The Applicant No. 1, clearly as an afterthought submitted that the connection was in the name of the Sumit Garg, who was the room mate of Mr. Nikhil Gupta, who is the husband of the Applicant No. 1. The Applicant No. 1 neither had the subscription in her own name nor in the name of her husband but in the name of a third person who was not at all related to the present complaint. Therefore, the Applicant No. 1 had with clear mala-fide filed the present complaint against the Respondent. (vi) The Applicant No. 1, in her attempt to clear the defect and create false locus, as an afterthought submitted that she has her registered mobile number and email ID against the subscri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces of pre-GST and post-GST periods. c. Pricing policy - Competitive pricing and not linked to taxes :- (i) The pricing adopted by the Respondent were generally set based on the perceived service value of his products and as charged by market forces/competitors such as cable and other operators. Thus, the Respondent did not price his subscription packages for DTH services based on any cost and taxes computation. Hence there was no impact of taxes on his package pricing to the subscribers and thereby no relevance of input VAT/CST/Entry Tax/SAD on the subscriber prices. (ii) No business house would survive without taking into consideration market factors while pricing its product. Thus, the question of taking any benefit of ITC in isolation was absurd and devoid of market realities. The broadcast sector, in particular the Distribution Platforms space was highly competitive and no entity could function in isolation of what prices were available in the market. d. Adhoc basis of computation adopted by the DGAP :- (i) The Computation table in the DGAP's Report provided an adhoc comparison of percentage of ITC availed to the turnover in the pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ears. Before, 2015, my husband and Mr. Sumit Garg were sharing the flat and the connection was jointly used by them. Post 2015, we have been using this connection. The registered email ID for this account is [email protected] which belongs to me and current registered mobile number is 9538172000 / 9538174000. Both these numbers belong to me and my husband Mr. Nikhil Gupta. Hope this is enough to prove that connection is being used by us though we could not get the name transferred as we are no longer in touch with Mr. Sumit Garg and getting NOC is difficult." The same has been discussed in the DGAP's report dated 05.08.2021 at para No. 16. Further, after substitution of the following after rule 137, in the Explanation, in clause (c), after sub-clause b, namely:- "c. any other person alleging, under sub-rule (1) of rule 128, that a registered person had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices." vide Notification No.14/2018-CT dated 23.03.2018 any other person can be considered as an "Interested party". The Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cility of seamless credit allowed in the post - GST period had been computed by comparing the ITC to turnover ratio in pre & post GST periods. c. For the contention raised by the Respondent regarding the Pricing Policy the DGAP has submitted that it was agreed that the pricing was dependent on market conditions and the Respondent was free to decide on the pricing. Sub-section 1 of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that "Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices". Accordingly, the Respondent in the instant case had to pass on the benefit of the additional ITC accrued to him consequent to introduction of GST by way of commensurate reduction in prices to comply with the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 which was a sacrifice made by the Government in the interest of the ultimate consumer. d. For the averment made by the Respondent regarding the adhoc basis of computation adopted by the DGAP, it has been submitted by the DGAP that there was a reasonable correlation between the turnover and the CENVAT credit of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... complaint not maintainable :- i. As per DGAP's Notice dated 15.06.2020, the Applicant No. 1 in respect of subscription id 1088222136 had filed an email complaint alleging profiteering by the Respondent vide email dated 22.12.2018. In this regard the Respondent had submitted that Applicant No. 1 was not his DTH subscriber, and the Respondent had not rendered any services to such customer. The current statement dated 01.06.2022 still shows Sumit Garg as subscriber and recipient of service as on date in the Respondent's records. ii. Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that the reduction in the rate of tax should be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in price. Therefore, the recipient being the affected party, for not receiving the commensurate reduction inprice, is aggrieved and should file a written complaint before the Screening Committee. Relevant extract of Section 171 is reproduced below for ready reference: "171. (1) Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices ..." Thus, in the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her name nor had her mobile number registered against the subscription ID. Thus, the change of mobile number in May 2021 was only an afterthought and with malafide intention only to counter the rightful claim made by the Respondent. v. The above fact had neither been considered by the DGAP in its investigation nor in its Letter dated 21 June 2022. The DGAP had ignored this fact that the Applicant No. 1 had filed the complaint with mala fide intentions wherein the complainant had no locus to file a complaint. vi. Further the DGAP vide its clarifications dated 21.06.2022 had submitted that post the introduction of Notification No. 14/2018-CT dated 23.03.2018, any other person could be considered as an interested party and file a complaint against an assessee under the National Anti-Profiteering Rules. Such submission of the DGAP was erroneous in as much as the same did not concur with the main provisions of the CGST Act. vii. It was trite in law that the rules could not override the statutory provisions of the Act. The rules would always be in consonance with the main act and could not formulate new procedures or change the texture of the parent act. Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....extended period Not exceeding a further period of one month for reasons to be recorded inwriting as may be allowed by the Authority.] upon being satisfied that the supplier has contravened the provisions of section 171, forward the application with its recommendations to the Standing Committee for further action". ii. There were patent errors of exercise of jurisdiction at the level of the Standing Committee and Screening Committee as was evident from the table below:- Sr.no. Act of Proceeding Actual date of proceedings Prescribed date Relevant GST Rule Number of days delay Remarks 1 Karnataka Screening Committee 13/12/2019 22/03/2019 128(2) 266 Contravention of Rule 128 (2) 2 Karnataka Standing Committee 06/05/2020 12/03/2020 128(1) 55 Contravention of Rule 128 (1) All the relevant pandemic extensions were made applicable only from 23.03.2020. The Standing Committee is a creature of statute, which was strictly bound to act within the time frame set out in the statute. The Respondent relied upon Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 111 and Om Prakash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he so-called satisfaction of Screening Committee was therefore formed on an un- evidenced and arbitrary basis. On this ground also, the proceedings were not maintainable as it did not adhere in terms of Rule 128(2) of the CGST Rules. vi. Such actions of the Screening Committee and Standing Committee were in total violation of Rule 128 of the CGST Rules. Rule 128 of the CGST Rules provides that the Standing Committee should examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application to determine whether there is a prima facie case against an assessee. However, in the present case there was no documentary evidence or proof to examine the accuracy and adequacy of the complaint, regardless of the same the Standing Committee without following the proper procedure envisaged under Rule 128, forwarded the case to the DGAP for further investigation. The actions of the Standing Committee were in total violation of the CGST Rules in as much as the Standing Committee had bypassed and circumvented the procedure to examine and analyse the evidence. vii. The National Anti-Profiteering Authority had dismissed several applications on the ground of lack of evidenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that therefore the aforementioned proceedings needed to be dropped as they had transgressed the ambit of the complaint. d. Pricing to Subscriber Completely Ignored by the DGAP :- i. The DGAP vide Letter dated 21.06.2022 submitted that the Respondent had to pass on the benefit of additional ITC accrued to him consequent to the introduction of GST. The Respondent in this regard submitted that the DGAP had neither considered the submissions of the Respondent nor the peculiar facts of the case but had blindly followed the provisions of the CGST Act and Rules. ii. The MRP collected for its DTH services provided to the customers was unchanged in both the pre-GST and post- GST regime. Thus, it implied that even though the GST tax rate on DTH services increased to 18% from 15%, the Respondent did not increase his DTH service MRP by additional 3% in view of market forces-based pricing. Accordingly with no change in MRP and increased tax costs the Respondent had suffered net loss in revenue which was evident from the Subscriber DTH service package pre-GST and post-GST comparative pricing as mentioned in table below. Pack price is kept same for Complainant Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Respondent never passed on the burden of tax to the subscribers as a part of its MRP market forces-based pricing. These submissions were not considered by the DGAP in its Report and had issued the Investigation Report without appreciating all the facts of the case. f. Fundamental constitutional challenges on Section 171 of the CGST Act and the anti-profiteering provisions under Rules 122- 137 of the CGST Rules :- i. Anti-profiteering provisions are ultra vires and beyond the scope of the provisions of the Constitution of India. ii. Section 171 is open-ended, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. iii. The term "commensurate" is undefined. iv. The word "profiteering" does not occur in section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Provision of imposition of penalty has been introduced by way of an amendment on 01.01.2020. v. Anti-Profiteering provisions suffered from the vice of excessive delegation. vi. Abdication of duty by NAA to prescribe Methodology. vii. Arbitrariness in the approach of NAA. 6. Hearing in the matter was held on 27.07.2022 through video co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Authority is void ab initio. In this regard, the Authority finds that the Karnataka State Screening Committee had observed that "Prima facie that the benefit of higher input tax credits available subsequent to levy of GST has to be passed on by the service provider in the form of reduced subscription charges" and therefore decided to forward the complaint/Application of the Applicant No. 1. Further, the Standing Committee had considered the aforesaid reference received from the Karnataka State Screening Committee and found Prima facie evidence in the allegation and forwarded the complaint/ Application to the DGAP for further detailed investigation. The Applicant No. 1 (Subscription ID-1088222136), vide her emails dated 27.07.2021 and 22.07.2021 submitted that Connection was in the name of Mr. Sumit Garg but this connection had been used by her for the past 5-6 years. Before, 2015, her husband and Mr. Sumit Garg were sharing the flat and the connection was jointly used by them. Post 2015, the Applicant No. 1 and her husband had been using the said connection. The registered email ID for the said account was [email protected] which belonged to the Applicant No. 1 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ially the connection belonged to Sh. Sumit Garg who was a flat mate of the Applicant No. 1's husband Sh. Nikhil Gupta. Post 2015, the Applicant No. 1 and her husband has been using the connection. Further, vide her complaint email dated 26.12.2018, the Applicant No. 1 has also stated that in the month of Jan, 2018 she has paid annual subscription charge of Rs. 3,290/ -. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the Applicant No. 1 has stepped into the shoes of the Sh. Sumit Garg for using the DTH connection and at no stage the Respondent has refused the consideration received from the Applicant No. 1 for providing DTH service and has accepted the subscription from her. The Respondent had even allowed the Applicant No. 1 to change her email id and mobile number. Therefore, the Authority finds that the Applicant no. 1 is an interested party (as explained in para 9(a) supra) and her complaint regarding non passing on of benefit of ITC (which was not available to the Respondent in pre-GST and available to him on implementation of GST) in relation to her DTH subscription is maintainable. This Authority holds that, the said Applicant No. 1 has locus standi in view of the above fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... free to decide on the pricing of subscription packages, but Sub-section 1 of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that "Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices", accordingly, the Respondent in the instant case had to pass on the benefit of the additional ITC accrued to him consequent to introduction of GST by way of commensurate reduction in prices of the subscription packages monthly/quarterly/annually to comply with the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the averment raised by the Respondent is not correct. d. The Respondent has also contested the method of computation adopted by the DGAP for determining the profiteering amount. In this regard, the Authority finds that there is a correlation between the turnover and the CENVAT credit of Service Tax / ITC as the Respondent was discharging his Service Tax / GST output liability out of the CENVAT credit of Service Tax paid on input services / ITC available to him on the basis of the turnover i.e. the cost realized by him from his subscribers. Accordingly, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ution of India. In this regard, the Authority finds that, neither this Authority nor the DGAP have acted in any way as price controller or regulator as they do not have the mandate to regulate the same. The Respondent is absolutely free to exercise his right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, as per the provisions of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The Respondent can also fix his prices and profit margins in respect of the supplies made by him. Under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, this Authority has only been mandated to ensure that both the benefits of tax reduction and ITC which are the sacrifice of precious indirect tax revenue made from the kitty of the Central and the State Governments are passed on to the end consumers who bear the burden of indirect tax. The intent of this provision is the welfare of the consumers who are voiceless, unorganized and vulnerable. This Authority is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that both of the above benefits are passed on to the general public as per the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 127 and Rule 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017. h. The Res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."commensurate" mentioned in the Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 gives the extent of benefit to be passed on by way of reduction in the prices which has to be computed in respect of each product based on the tax reduction or availability of additional ITC as well as the existing base price (price without GST) of the product. The computation of commensurate reduction in prices is purely a mathematical exercise which is based upon the above parameters and hence it would vary from product to product and hence no fixed mathematical methodology can be prescribed to determine the amount of benefit which a supplier is required to pass on to a recipient or the profiteered amount. One formula which fits all cannot be set while determining such a "Methodology and Procedure" as the facts of each case are different. Further, the facts of the cases relating to the Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs), restaurants, construction and cinema houses are completely different and therefore, the mathematical methodology employed in the case of one sector cannot be applied in the other sector otherwise it would result in denial of the benefit to the eligible recipients. Moreover, both the above benef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deposit the profiteered amount in respect of all the subscribers in the Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) as envisaged in Rule 133(3)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017 from the date the said amounts were profiteered uptil the date the said profiteered amounts are deposited in the particular Consumer Welfare Fund as prescribed. Therefore, the Respondent is directed to deposit the amount profiteered in two equal parts, of Rs. 225,09,03,629/- in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) and Rs. 225,09,03,629/- in the particular/tabulated State Consumer Welfare Funds as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, along with interest @18% from the date the said amounts were profiteered uptil the date the said profiteered amounts are deposited in the particular Consumer Welfare Fund as prescribed, as per the table given below:- State/UT Name Amount to be deposited in the State CWF (in Rs.) ANDHRA PRADESH 30788077.68 ARUNACHAL PRADESH 7237790.393 ASSAM 65836792.92 BIHAR 26046638.2 CHANDIGARH 9344639.673 CHATTISGARH 28760799.99 DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI 385208.9328 DAMAN & DIU 240445.9142 DELHI 97378083.54 GOA 13704438.1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the DGAP within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this order. 16. Further, the DGAP is also directed to monitor the compliance of the order by the concerned jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner. 17. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its Order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, while taking suo moto cognizance of the situation arising on account of Covid-19 pandemic, has extended the period of limitations prescribed under general law of limitation or any other special laws (both Central and State) including those prescribed under Rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as is clear from the said Order which states as follows :- "A period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its subsequent Order dated 10.01.2022 has extended the period(s) of limitation till 28.02.2022 and the relevant portion of the said Order is as follows:- "The Order dated 23.03.2020 ....