TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vt. Ltd. The erstwhile National Anti-Profiteering Authority, vide Interim Order No. 37/2020 dated 11.12.2020, remanded the matter back to the DGAP by invoking Rule 133 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 with directions to conduct further investigation on certain issues as enumerated herein as under: - i. The erstwhile NAA took note of the fact that as per the letter dated 27.07.2020, the DGAP admitted that the base price of Rs 214/- of the product "SP EP PRIMER GREY-1 Liter" which was prevailing in the pre-rate reduction period has been kept as the same in the post rate reduction period. If it is taken to be correct, then there is no issue of not passing on the benefit of tax reduction by the Noticee as he has maintained the same base price in the post rate reduction period. Hence the claim of the DGAP made in its reports dated 27.02.2020, that the Noticee has not passed on the benefit of tax reduction by increasing base price of the said product in the post rate reduction period is contrary to the clarification given above. Therefore, the NAA considered it proper that the DGAP should explain the contradiction made in the reports dated 27.02.2020 and 27.07.2020. ii. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ification given was wrong. Hence it is further observed that the DGAP is required to re-examine the above claim of the Noticee and submit fresh findings on the same. v. The DGAP, vide Para 15 of his report dated 27.02.2020, the erstwhile further noted that "as per the outward sales data submitted by the Noticee, it has been observed that approximately 90 products were not sold before 27.07.2018 and accordingly they are construed as new products launched by the Noticee post GST rate reduction and, therefore, they have been kept out of the purview of anti-profiteering". Thus, in this connection perusal of the Report dated 27.02.2020 of the DGAP showed that is has not been mentioned in it whether any effort was made to examine the details of the outward taxable supplies of the Respondent made during the previous months of May, April and March 2018 and so on to confirm that the above 90 products have not been sold by the Respondent in the pre rate reduction period. These details were also not summoned by the DGAP vide NOI dated 25.06.2019. Therefore, the erstwhile NAA further concluded that the DGAP is required to conduct fresh investigation to ascertain that the above 90 prod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, these price changes occurred in the normal course of business. In the immediate aftermath of the GST rate reduction w.e.f. 27.07.2018, there was no change in the Base price of the products sold by the Noticee, which fact has not been disputed. While section 171 of the CGST Act prescribes for certain antiprofiteering measures, it does not and cannot bar any price change/price increase in the ordinary course of business, more than 2-3 months after the GST rate reduction. b) Notwithstanding the above mut us stated that the price changes in the products of the Noticee were not made as an immediate consequence of the reduction in rate of GST as is evidenced from Table Nos. 1-6 below. c) The Noticee also explained that as a general practice, the Noticee maintains separate product codes for every pack size of a particular product, hence for a single product-there would be multiple product codes depending on the pack size of the product and this practice had not changed from 2017-19. Vide letter dated 25.06.2021, the Noticee provided signed copies of sample invoices and further clarified that the reason for multiple codes for same pack size of "SP EP Primer G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prior to and post the GST rate reduction. 2. The Respondent has submitted that the DGAP in its Report has not properly considered the product "SP EP -1 Liter". Further it is submitted that the DGAP has evaded the specific question raised by the erstwhile NAA in the aforesaid Interim Order. 3. In course of hearing, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Responded on 15.2.2026 raised certain issues regarding play of market forces and he reasons for increasing the MRP of the product. Accordingly, we granted liberty to the Respondent to file appropriate written submission along with the Affidavit detailing the process of the practice and the ordinary course of business adopted by the Company while changing prices along with contemporaries documents in pursuance of such liberty the Learned Counsel filed an additional written submission wherein at para 4,5,6 and 7 as specifically mentioned the reasons of increasing the base price of the products reconsider it appropriate to quote the specific paragraph wherein this plea has been raised. This is the document dated 20.02.2026. Thereafter, DGAP was asked to give a reply to the same and respond to the same. 4. DGAP in their clarific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that figures arrived at as an average for a month should not compared to an average arrived at consumption on yearly basis. Therefore, they have re-iterated their investigation report dated 11.01.2021 and submit that Tribunal may pass any order it deemed fir or proper. 7. Shri Karthik Sundaram, learned Assistant Commissioner in advancing the case of the Respondent submitted that once the DGAP has admitted that the documents have been filed they cannot state that at a later stage or at later point of time it cannot be incorporate in the Report submitted by the DGAP. He further stated that the Report of the DGAP appears to be incorrect on the face of it and it should be set aside and a matter should be closed. Alternatively, it is argued that if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that this matter should be re-investigated on the basis of fresh documents filed, then it should consider whether this aspect should be re-investigated by the DGAP. The Assistant Commissioner and learned AAD appearing for the DGAP could not put forth a plausible reason for not reconsidering the matter in the light of documents filed. The Hon'ble high Court of Delhi in the case of Reckitt Benckis....