2019 (2) TMI 295 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – TMI – Profiteering – restaurant services – SGB Stuffed GB (Garlic Bread) – 1 Med NHT Veg Extrava (Medium Veg Pizza) – benefit of reduction in rate of tax not passed – increase in base price of the products – denial of ITC – period between 15.11.2017 to 31.05.2018 – Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
–
Held that:- The Respondent is engaged in the business of operating quick service restaurants under the name and style of Domino’s Pizza’ and has a pan India presence with 1,128 outlets across 31 States and Union Territories in which the Respondent is duly registered under the GST and all his outlets were maintaining consistency from taste to overall experience and the prices of all his products as shown in the menu were similar throughout his restaurants exclusive of the GST. It has also been admitted by the Respondent that the Central Govt. vide its Notification No. 46/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 had reduced the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of the Type B Pizza. Perusal of Annexure23 attached by the DGAP with his Report also shows that the base prices of both these products were in fact increased by the amount shown above by the Respondent. Therefore, even if it is admitted that both the items of Pizza ordered by the above Applicant were distinct there is hardly any doubt that the Respondent had increased the base prices of both of them as per his own admission which he should not have done arbitrarily – However, the Respondent has duly admitted that he had increased the base prices in respect of the second item viz. Garlic Bread purchased by the above Applicant from him after the tax reduction. Therefore, there was sufficient ground for the Screening Committee as well as the DGAP to investigate the allegation of profiteering made against the Respondent and the objection raised by the Respondent on this ground is completely wrong and frivolous and hence the same cannot be accepted.
–
The provisions of Section 171 are
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nt is determined as ₹ 41,42,97,635/- as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 – Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices by way of commensurate reduction keeping in view the reduced rate of tax and the benefit of ITC denied – Respondent is also directed to refund to the Applicant No. 1 an amount of ₹ 5.65 along with interest @18% from the date of charging of the above amount from him till its refund.
–
Penalty – Held that:- The Respondent has resorted to profiteering by charging more price than what he could have charged by issuing wrong tax invoices. He has further acted in conscious disregard of the obligation which was cast upon him by the law, by issuing incorrect invoices in which the base prices were deliberately enhanced more than what he was entitled to increase due to denial of ITC and thus he had denied the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax granted vide Notification dated 14.11.2017 to his customers. Accordingly
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
f the case are that under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 an application through e-mail dated 29.11 2017 (Annexure-I of the Report) was filed by the Applicant No. 1 against the Respondent stating that he had purchased 1 SGB Stuffed GB (Garlic Bread) and 1 Med NHT Veg Extrava (Medium Veg Pizza) after paying ₹ 129/- and ₹ 440/- per item respectively vide tax Invoice No. 66065/17/66210 dated 20.10.2017 (Annexure-2 of the Report) from the restaurant being run by the Respondent in Bengaluru. He had also stated that he had purchased the above 2 items again vide tax Invoice No. 66294/17/40249 dated 19.11.2017 (Annexure-3 of the Report) by paying an amount of ₹ 139/- and ₹ 485/- respectively from the Respondent. He had alleged that though the Goods & Services Tax (GST) rate on restaurant services was reduced from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, the Respondent had increased the base prices of the above food items and charged the same ba
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
submitted by the Respondent were voluminous, extension for completing the investigation was sought by the DGAP which was granted by this Authority vide its order dated 04.04 2018, in terms of Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3. The DGAP in his Report has stated that a notice under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017 was issued on 25.01.2018 (Annexure-5 of the Report) calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether or not he admitted that the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST had been passed on by him to his recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices. The Respondent was also asked to suo-moto determine the quantum of benefit not passed on to his customers, if any, and intimate the same in his reply. The DGAP had also asked the Respondent to furnish the required information which was supplied by him vide his letters attached as Annexures-8 to Annexure-17 with the Report including the confidential information. The Applicant No. 1 was also given an opportunity by the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
reduction in respect of restaurant services had been made along with denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) which had become a cost for him as he was required to pay GST on the inputs without benefit of the ITC. (c) That the menu prices were exclusive of taxes/GST and hence any comparison had to be made between the cum-tax prices and not the base prices. The Respondent had also stated that the revised base prices had taken into account the cost of non-creditable input GST, however there had been no increase in the ultimate prices inclusive of GST to be paid by the customers. (d) That he had increased the base prices of Medium Veg Pizza and Garlic Bread, however their selling prices inclusive of GST had actually decreased as could be seen from the following table:- Type of product Price up to 14.11.2017 (Rs.) Price w.e.f.15.11.2017 (Rs.) Increase in base price Decrease in total price Base price GST 18% Actual Price to Consumer Base price GST @ 5% Actual Price to Consumer Medium Veg Pizza 440
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
TC availed during the period between July, 2017 to October, 2017 and the cost of the restaurant service had gone up therefore he had to increase the base prices of his products which was not commensurate with the increase in the input costs. The Respondent had explained the impact of monthly margin as per the details given below:- Particulars Amount (Rs.) Average monthly increase in input tax cost relating to direct material expenses (monthly average for July to October, 2017) -6.6 crores Average monthly increase in input tax cost relating to indirect expenses incurred commonly (monthly average for July, 2017 to October, 2017) -7.7 crores Total increase in input tax credit costs -14.2 crores Average monthly increase in revenue on account of increase in base price (projection on sales data for September, 2017) -11.8 crores Total impact on monthly margin -(2.4) crores (g) The Respondent had also claimed that there were a number of factors involved in determining the prices of his product
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
. (i) The Respondent has also claimed that in respect of the Medium Veg Pizza and the Garlic Bread he had not only passed on the benefits by reduction in the tax rate but had also reduced their prices and incurred substantial losses. (j) He has further claimed that after 15.11.2017, he had not availed any ITC for the restaurant services and the ITC claimed after 15.1 1.2017 pertained to the States where he had commissary or warehouses which made stock transfers and had output GST liability. He has also stated that in lieu of the ITC register, he was maintaining purchase register and was availing ITC on the interstate stock transfers to his restaurants and no ITC was availed by the restaurants. (k) He has also intimated that he was running 1,128 restaurants all over the country each of which on an average was issuing 250-300 tax invoices per day with an average of 3 products per invoice. He has further intimated that the outward taxable supplies would be in excess of 10 crore line items
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
es any other means of passing on the benefit of ITC or reduction in the rate of tax to the consumers. He has thus claimed that the legal position was unambiguous which mandated that the supplier of goods or services must pass on the benefit of ITC or reduction in the rate of tax to the recipients by way of reducing the prices to be paid by the recipients and there was no flexibility available to the suppliers to suo-moto decide on any other method of passing on both the above benefits. 7. The DGAP s report also states that the Respondent had submitted that he had incurred substantial losses by not passing the entire burden of denial of ITC and the resultant input tax costs to the customers by increasing his selling prices. In this regard the DGAP has contended that from the perusal of Note-4 attached to the Statement of Audited Financial Results for the quarter and year ending 31.03.2018 (Annexure-19 of the Report) it was clear that the Respondent s business activity fell within a sing
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
re exceptional items and tax of the Respondent has been supplied by the DGAP as per the Table given below:- Period [Financial Year (FY)/ Quarter Ending (QE)] Sale of Products Profit Before Exceptional Items & Tax Change in Sale and Profits Sales (Rs. Lakh) % increase over previous period Profit (Rs. Lakh) % increase over previous period FY 2014-15 2,07,409.32 17,206.12 FY 2015-16 2,40,947.65 16.17% 16,696.21 -2.96% Sale ↑ 16%; Profit ¯ 3% FY 2016-17 2,54,606.98 5.67% 10,992.14 -34.16% Sale ↑ 6%; Profit ¯ 34% FY 2017-18 2,98,044.06 17.06% 31,323.84 184.97% Sale ↑ 17%; Profit ↑ 185% QE Dec. 2014 55,426.83 4,880.17 QE Dec. 2015 63,376.09 14.34% 4,551 .34 -6.74% Sale ↑ 15%; Profit ¯ 7% QE Dec. 2016 65,875.51 3.94% 2,947.53 -35.24% Sale ↑ 4% Profit ¯ 35% QE Dec. 2017 79,516.54 20.71% 10,092.29 242.40% Sale ↑ 21%; Profit ↑ 242% QE March 2015 54,200.99 4,530.23 QE March 2016 61,783.59 13.99% 4,389.54 -3.1 1% Sale ↑ 14%; Prof
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
id by the consumers had not been reduced commensurately for all the above items, inspite of the reduction in the rate of tax. 9. The DGAP in his report has further stated that the impact of denial of ITC required the determination of the ITC as a percentage of the total outward taxable turnover during the periods pre and post GST rate reduction and accordingly he has calculated the same by taking into consideration the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2017 and not up to 14.11.2017 due to the following reasons:- (a) The Respondent has reversed the ITC on the closing stock of inputs and the capital goods as on 14.11.2017 and this credit was not available in the GSTR-3B return of November, 2017. As these inputs would have been used after 15.11.2017, their ITC had been left out as no ITC could be claimed after the above date. (b) The details of the invoice-wise outward taxable turnover for the month of November, 2017 were not supplied by the Respondent to calculate the taxable turnover for
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
.07.2018 that he had availed transitional credit of ₹ 1.84 crore at the time of filing GSTR-3B return for the month of November, 2017 however, he had also availed the same amount of ₹ 1.84 Crore as ITC through TRAN-1. The DGAP has contended that As per the provisions of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017, transitional credit could only be carried forward by filing GST Form TRAN-1 and not through the GSTR-3B return. 10. The DGAP has also intimated that while computing the ITC as a percentage of the total taxable turnover of the Respondent, the ITC for the period w.e.f. July, 2017 to October, 2017, as mentioned in the GSTR-3B return had been adjusted by excluding the amount of ITC of tax paid on inter-unit branch transfers as per the sales register. He has further intimated that while determining the net taxable turnover of the Respondent during the period from July, 2017 to October, 2017, the total taxable turnover (excluding inter-unit branch transfers) as per the GSTR-I retu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Tax on Inter unit branch transfers as per Sales register (B) 4,86,70,456 6,34,79,714 5,65,75,226 5,9015,082 22,77,40,478 Net Input Tax Credit available for the period July, 2017 to October, 2017 (C)=(A-B) 4,72,51,377 14,85,16,631 19,05,47,942 16,86,94,442 55,50,10,392 Total Outward Taxable Turnover as per GSTR-1 (D) 2,78,61,32,213 2,99,11,80,009 2,93,77,50,465 3,04,74,93,204 11,76,25,55,891 Less: Inter unit branch transfers Included in B2B Sales as per Sale Register (E) 39,18,73,402 49,69,53,429 44,71,12,802 49,47,41,644 1,83,06,81,277 Net Outward Taxable Turnover for the period July, 2017 to October, 2017 (F)=(D-E) 2,39,42,58,811 2,49,42,26,580 2,49,06,37,663 2,55,27,51,560 9,93,18,74,614 Ratio of Input Tax Credit to Net Outward Taxable Turnover (G): (C/F) 5.59% 11. The DGAP s Report also states that on the basis of the analysis of the details of the item-wise outward taxable supplies made during the period between 15.11.2017 to 31.05.2018, it was revealed that the Respondent had inc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the product wise sales registers reconciled with the GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns, the amount of net higher sale realization due to increase in the base prices of the services, despite reduction in the GST rate from 18% to 5%, with denial of ITC or in other words, the profiteered amount came to ₹ 41,42,97,635/- as per the detailed calculations made vide Annexure-23 of the Report. This amount was inclusive of ₹ 5.65/- which was the profiteered amount in respect of the Applicant No. 1. 13. The above Report was considered by the Authority in its meeting held on 17.07.2018 and it was decided to hear the Applicants and the Respondent on 02 08.2018 but the hearing was postponed to 13.08.2018 on the request of the Respondent. On 13.08.2018 none appeared for the Applicant No. 1, Applicant No. 2 was represented by Ms. Gayatri Verma, Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Akshat Aggarwal, Assistant Commissioner and Mr. Bhupender Goel, Assistant Director, (Costs). The Respondent was represented by Mr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
.10.2017 was Medium Veg Extravaganza Pizza Normal Crust Hand Tossed, whereas the pizza ordered by him vide invoice dated 19.11.2017 was Medium Veg Extravaganza Pizza Pan Crust . Therefore, the Respondent has contended that the application was filed for two different and incomparable products, the prices of which couldn t be compared. The Respondent has also submitted that the investigation report had gone beyond the application and investigated all the 393 SKUs sold by the Respondent for profiteering which couldn t have been done. In this regard, the Respondent has also relied upon the 2 cases viz. M/s. Dinesh Mohan Bhardwaj Proprietor U. P. Sales & Services v. M/s. Vrandavaneshwree Automotive Private Limited 2018-VIL-01-NAA = 2018 (4) TMI 1377 – THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY and Rishi Gupta v. M/S Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. 2018-VlL-04-NAA = 2018 (7) TMI 1490 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY and contended that in both these case this Authority had limited its fin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
017 the Respondent has further stated that the Authority hadn t determined the methodology and the procedure under the above Rule for determination whether the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax on the supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC had been passed on by the registered person to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in the prices or not. He has also mentioned that the Procedure and Methodology issued on 19.07.2018 by the Authority only provided the procedure pertaining to investigation and hearing but no method/formula had been notified/prescribed pertaining to calculation of profiteered amount and there was no indication how to conclude that there was profiteering due to change in the rate of tax and whether such computation had to be done invoice-wise, product-wise, business vertical-wise or entity-wise etc. He has therefore contended that due to lack of transparency the results could vary from case to case resulting in arbitrariness and violation of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
9) ELT 28 (Mad.) = 1996 (6) TMI 90 – MADRAS HIGH COURT, where the Hon ble Madras High Court had held that in the absence of machinery provisions pertaining to determination and adjudication upon a claim or objection, the statutory provision will not be applicable. 17. The Respondent has also claimed that the compulsory deposit of the profiteered amount into the Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) was akin to the levy in collection of taxes themselves, which as per the taxation law was illegal due to the absence of the method of computation of quantum of tax. The Respondent has further claimed that in the absence of prescribed method/formula/guidelines for calculation of the profiteered amount, caseto-case basis determination of profiteering was arbitrary and illegal. 18. The Respondent has also submitted that while calculating the alleged profiteered amount, the DGAP had wrongly added notional 5% in this amount without explaining the reasons. The Respondent has further submitted that this amou
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
KUs) where the price increase was within the permissible limit and the amount of profiteering for such products had been kept as zero (0). While referring to Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 127 (i) and (ii) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the notes on Section 171, the Respondent has submitted that from a joint reading of the above provisions, it was apparent that a registered person should pass on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax or ITC to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices by keeping both of them as separate entities. The Respondent has also alleged that the DGAP had treated him as an entity although all the stores of the Respondent were separately registered and were separate entities as per the GST law. He has further alleged that the DGAP had taken into account the total price charged from the customers all over India for arriving at the alleged profiteered amount which was incorrect. The Respondent has also objected to the methodology adopte
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
English Language, Deluxe Encyclopaedic Edition: 5. Commensurable. 6. In proper proportion; proportionate. 7. Sufficient for the purpose or occasion. 8. Adequate; of equal extent. (iii) The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary: 9. Having the same measure; of equal extent, duration or magnitude. 10. Of corresponding extent, magnitude, or degree; proportionate, adequate. 11. Corresponding in nature; belonging to the same sphere or realm of things. 12. Characterized by a common measure. 20. Therefore, the Respondent has claimed that while determining the commensurate benefit to be given to the recipient, reduction in price must necessarily be considered by treating the Supplier as an entity and the recipient as a group and hence the entire supply made by him must be considered and then on comparison of reduction of tax rate and additional ITC, it was to be determined whether profiteering had been done by such a Supplier as an entity. He has further claimed that the customers b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tice to increase the prices of his products at different rates and historically also he had made different price increases for different SKU s. The Respondent has also claimed that the DGAP had wrongly applied a methodology similar to the zeroing methodology which was used by the anti-dumping authorities in certain countries which while calculating the dumping margins took only those SKUs in account which were being dumped and those SKU s which were not being dumped were not considered. The Respondent has further claimed that the Government of India (GOI) had objected to this methodology at the WTO and argued that while determining the dumping margins, all the SKUs should be taken into consideration. He has also cited the Report No. WT/DS141/AB/R dated 01.03.2001 of the Appellate Body of WTO in his support and claimed that the plea of the GOI was accepted by the Appellate Body and both positive and the negative margins were ordered to be taken in to account to determine the dumping mar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
h was followed in Malaysia to pass on the additional cost which had arisen due to non-availability of ITC. He has further claimed that the methodology adopted by the DGAP of treating the Respondent as service industry for assessment purpose and considering SKU for calculation of the profiteered amount was incorrect and thus, his Report was liable to be rejected. 23. The Respondent has also averred that he had revised the prices of almost all the SKUs as a normal business decision due to the various factors like rise in the price of raw material due to inflation and increase in the cost due to non-availability of the ITC which was available earlier. He has admitted that the differential price revision for the year 2017 was made w.e.f. from 15.11.2017 as a business decision and it did not in any way prove that that he had any intention to profiteer due to reduction in the rate of tax and he normally used to increase the prices 2-3 times in a year generally in July-Sept to account for the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e law settled in the above case was fully applicable in the present case also as increase in the cost was a reason for price increase and frequent price increases were very common in the food and the beverage industry, however, the DGAP had not taken in to account the normal inflation and presumed that the Respondent was entitled to increase his prices on account of denial of ITC only. He has also argued that in case the impact of nominal inflation in cost of 1.99% was considered, then the profiteered amount would reduce by ₹ 12.75 Crore. 24. The Respondent has also claimed that the conclusion of the DGAP at paragraph 12 of his Report that there was a sharp increase in the profits made by the Respondent without corresponding increase in the sale of his products was wrong as during the Quarter Ending (QE) March 2018 as compared to the QE March 2017 profits had increased by 406% while the sales had increased only by 27% and the profits during the FY 2017-18 had increased by 185% wh
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
major reason for increase in the profits was due to the reason that the rate of increase in fixed cost was less than the rate of increase in the sales and the DGAP had failed to consider the impact of increased sales and reduced fixed expenses per unit or percentage to the sale and thus, the conclusion drawn by him was factually incorrect and was not liable to be considered. The Respondent has also placed Exhibit-8 on record to support his claim 25. The Respondent has further claimed that the DGAP has wrongly computed the amount of eligible increase due to non-availability of ITC as 5.59% which should be 7% as he has not taken in to account the ITC for the period w.e.f. 01.11.2017 to 14.11.2017. The Respondent has contested the claim made by the DGAP for not considering the above ITC by stating that reversal of ITC of ₹ 7.73 Crore on the closing stock of the inputs and the capital goods had been duly mentioned in the GSTR-3B return. He has also submitted that the DGAP had allowed
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
pt for the computation of ITC which had adversely affected him. The Respondent has further alleged that the DGAP had considered the ITC on the Inter-State Stock transfers on the basis of the Sales Register, while the actual ITC availed was less in the ITC Register, as the ITC on such transfers for the last 2-3 days of a particular month was availed during the next month and in case the ITC on these transfers was considered from the ITC Register the Respondent would be eligible for increase in prices of 7% instead of 5.59% due to denial of ITC and the profiteered amount would decrease by ₹ 9.21 Crore. 26. The Respondent has also submitted that the DGAP has wrongly used average sale realization for calculating the profiteered amount instead of the menu prices as these prices had been formalised throughout the country and he was selling majority of his products on the menu price. He has further submitted that he was offering a number of discounts like Operational Discounts, Total Sa
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d promotional discounts which were not part of the price was not considered which had adversely affected the calculation of the profiteered amount. The Respondent has further stated that if the comparison was made for the period between 01.10.2017- 14.11.2017 of 45 days with the period between 01.11.2017- 14.11.2017 of 14 days, the profiteered amount of ₹ 41.42 Crore would be reduced to ₹ 29.53 Crore. He has also cited the case of Rishi Gupta 2018 (7) TMI 1490 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY in this regard. He has also argued that since the menu prices were constant throughout the country the same should have been taken it to account instead of net sale realization which differed from case to case and such menu prices pre and post rate reduction should have been compared. The Respondent has further argued that he had changed his discount policy w.e.f. 01.11 2017 as he proposed to do away with many type of discounts which showed that this had nothing to do with the GS
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
invoices issued during the month of December, 2017 which had revealed that that there was no profiteering in respect of 50% cases and the recipients had got more benefit. He has further claimed that as per the methodology adopted by the DGAP the profiteered amount would be ₹ 5,19,76,634/- as against ₹ 7,05,08,258/- if invoice wise calculation methodology was adopted. He has further claimed vide his submissions dated 11.09.2018 that he had completed the invoice wise exercise to ascertain if he had profiteered during the period between 15.11.2017 to 31.05.2018 and it had been found that the calculation made by the DGAP was in excess of ₹ 10,73,67,089/- and therefore, the profiteered amount would stand reduced to ₹ 28,75,05,808/-. He has also contended that if the input credit loss was taken to be @ 7% (as claimed by the Respondent) instead of 5.59% (as computed by DGAP), then the profiteered amount would be reduced to approx. Rs. under the invoice wise methodology
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Sharma v. M/s. Sharma Trading Company, Case No. 6/2018 = 2018 (9) TMI 625 – THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY, it had been held that where the tax rate was reduced from 28% to 18%, the Respondent should have reduced the price by the same amount by mathematical calculation from the MRP at which the goods were sold before such reduction. Therefore, the Respondent has asserted that by following the ratio laid down in the above case the Respondent had also duly discharged his responsibility by reducing the rate of tax from 18% to 5%. He has further asserted that the he had not received any additional benefit of ITC rather the benefit of ITC was denied to him w.e.f. 15.11.2017 which had resulted in loss to him. The Respondent has also contended that he had increased the prices of some of the SKUs due to the denial of the ITC and on account of other commercial grounds which this Authority could not examine as such issues were not covered under the provisions of Section 171. He has fu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed by the DGAP while calculating profiteering. The Respondent has further stated that the law prohibited profiteering and this Authority could determine the same in case a supplier earned profit due to reduction in the rate of tax however, when he reduced the rate of tax and increased his prices due to denial of ITC or due to other commercial reasons it could not be termed as profiteering and any restriction on price increase would amount to price control or price regulation which would violate the freedom of trade and business guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. He has also contended that in his case the profiteered amount had been calculated till May 2018 and he was not sure till what period he could not increase his prices so as not to invite anti-profiteering provisions and hence it could be said that these provisions would restrict his right to do business indefinitely. 29. The Respondent has also submitted that present proceedings had been launched in violati
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
cause notice otherwise he could not defend himself. He has also cited the cases of Canara Bank & others v. Debasis Das & others (2003) 4 SCC 557, = 2003 (3) TMI 664 – SUPREME COURT Uma Nath Pandey & others v. State of UP (2009) 12 SCC 40 = 2009 (3) TMI 526 – SUPREME COURT, Collector of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd. 1994 (71) ELT 324 = 1994 (2) TMI 62 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, Vasta Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner 2018 (360) ELT 234 = 2018 (1) TMI 1437 – MADRAS HIGH COURT, Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 (320) ELT 3 = 2015 (5) TMI 500 – SUPREME COURT, Anrak Aluminium Ltd. v. Commissioner 2017 (4) GSTL 248 = 2017 (5) TMI 1200 – CESTAT HYDERABAD and Goyal Tobbaco v. Commissioner 2015 (329) ELT 619 = 2015 (11) TMI 249 – CESTAT NEW DELHI in his support. 30. The Respondent has also claimed that the rate of tax was reduced from 18% to 5% without benefit of ITC as per the Notification No. 46/2017-CT (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 for restaur
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ased the prices of the above SKUs equal to the permissible limit and hence the customers had benefited to the tune of about ₹ 60.57 Crore. He has also argued that in the absence of any methodology on passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and benefit of input tax credit, the Respondent had decided not to increase the prices uniformly. The Respondent has also argued that there has been no discrepancies during the availing of the ITC by him and hence the DGAP should have stayed the investigation in case he had referred any such discrepancies to the jurisdictional authorities, whereas the availing of TRAN-I credit was held to be correct by such authorities. 31. The Respondent vide his additional submissions dated 05.10.2018 and 22.10.2018 has pleaded that the findings given in the case of Jijrushu N. Bhattacharya v. M/s. NP Foods by this Authority on 27.09.2018 = 2018 (10) TMI 1338 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY were squarely applicable in the present case, h
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g Pizza and Garlic Bread 9. Increase in base price ₹ 130/- to 145/- Para-1 Pizza: ₹ 440 to FRS. 450/(Type A) Garlic Bread: ₹ 129/-to 139/- 10. Period examined for loss of ITC July 2017 to November 2017 Para-4 July 2017 to October 2017 (Request by Noticee for considering period of July 2017 to 14th November 2017) 11. Period for comparison for outward taxable supplies 15.11.2017 to 28.02.2018 Para-4 15.11.2017 to 31.05.2018 12. Loss of ITC as per DGAP 11.80% Para-4 5.59% (ITC Loss will be 7% if November is also taken into account) 13. Average increase in base prices 12.14% para-4 4.49% 14. Difference between Average increase in base price and loss of ITC (S.No.13-S.No 12) 0.34% Derived (-) 1.10% 32. The DGAP in his supplementary Reports dated 17.08.2018, 06.09.2018, 01.10.2018 and 31.10.2018 filed in response to the submissions made by the Respondent has stated that the claim of the Respondent that Applicant No. 1 had filed complaint for Medium Veg Pizza only and there
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e was benefit of reduction in the rate of tax but the Respondent had not passed on such benefit. Further, the DGAP has claimed that he had concluded investigation w.r.t. only contravention of the provision of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and not for the other non-compliances by the Respondent such as availment of Transition Credit twice, difference between GSTR-1 returns, GSTR-3B returns and the Sale Registers and wrong availment of ITC etc. for which the jurisdictional authorities were requested to safeguard the interest of revenue. 34. The DGAP has also mentioned that the Respondent was under legal obligation to pass on the benefit of ITC or reduction in the rate of tax by way of commensurate reduction in the price of each and every supply of goods or services and by following the same rule, he had requested the Respondent to provide invoice-wise details of outward taxable supplies vide his letters dated 15.03.2018 and 27.03.2018, whereas the Respondent, vide his letter dated 20
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ted that he was justified in applying the provisions of anti-profiteering at the Product/SKUs level in the absence of invoice-wise outward taxable supplies data. 36. The DGAP has also claimed with respect to the allegation of the Respondent that profiteered amount had been inflated by adding 5% GST by stating that the prices include both basic price and also the tax charged on them and therefore, any excess amount collected from the recipients amounted to profiteering which must be returned to the recipients, and in case the recipients were not identifiable, the same was required to be deposited in the CWF. He has further claimed that the anti-profiteering law did not offer a supplier of goods and services, flexibility to pass on the benefit of ITC or reduction in the rate of tax on one product, say X by reducing the prices of any other product, say Y . The DGAP has also intimated that the Respondent vide his letter dated 07.02.2018 had submitted that he was engaged in the business of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
base prices and he had only added the denial of ITC to the pre rate reduction base prices and such reduction could obviously only be in absolute terms, so that the final price payable by a consumer must get reduced. Thus he has claimed that the legal position on this account was unambiguous and could be summed up as follows. (a) A supplier of goods or services must pass on the benefit of ITC or reduction in the rate of tax to the recipients by commensurate reduction in prices. (b) The law does not offer a supplier of goods and services any flexibility to suo moto decide on any other modality to pass on the benefit of ITC or reduction in the rate of tax to the recipients. The DGAP has also contended that the increase in the cost of inputs and input services was a factor for determination of prices but this factor was independent of the output GST rate and it couldn t be asserted that the elements of cost unrelated to GST were affected by the change in the output GST rates, therefore in
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
had reduced from 50.16% in FY 2016-17 to 48.65% in FY 2017-18 i.e. by 1.51%. The DGAP has further claimed that the Respondent has submitted a certificate of increase in his employee benefit expenses by ₹ 27 Crore but after going through the submissions it was clear that the Respondent had saved ₹ 29.32 Crore in the FY 2017-18 even if inflation was not taken into account. Working of the same has been given in the Table below:- Particulars Amount in Lakhs Income from Operation in FY 2016-17 A 2, 54,607 Actual Fixed Employee Benefit Exp. In FY 2016-17 B 29,797 Actual Variable Employee Benefit Exp. In FY 2016-17 C 28,657 Ratio of Variable Employee Benefit Exp. D=(C/A) 11.26% Total Actual Employee Benefit Exp. In FY 2016-17 E=B+C 58,454 Income from Operation in FY 2017-18 F Variable Employee Benefit Exp. Considering Same ratio of FY 2016-17 G=F*D 33,546 Fixed Employee Benefit Exp. Considering Same as of FY 2016-17 H=B 29,797 Total Employee Benefit Exp. Without considering any i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Availed % of Total ITC Availed ITC Reversed Net ITC Availed % to Total Net ITC Availed A B C (% of B) D E=B+D F (% of E) 1-Nov-17 31,39,376 0.90% (52,281) 30 87,095 1.23% 2-Nov-17 60,50,031 1.74% (1,56,024) 58,94,007 2.34% 3-Nov-17 58,21,864 1.68% (2,03,476) 56,18,388 2.23% 4-Nov-17 38,14,921 1.10% – 38,14,921 1.52% 5-Nov-17 37,53,056 1.08% – 37,53,056 1.49% 6-Nov-17 34,75,983 1.00% (4,746) 34,71 ,237 1.38% 7-Nov-17 52,22,267 1.50% (12,779) 52,09,489 2.07% 8-Nov-17 76,99,658 2.22% – 76,99,658 3.06% 9-Nov-17 121,75,526 3.50% (41,659) 121,33,867 4.82% 10-Nov-17 75,83,972 2.18% (32,495) 75,51,477 3.00% 11-Nov-17 74,03,363 2.13% (18,37,604) 55,65,759 2.21% 12-Nov-17 119,66,406 3.44% (2,15,162) 117,51,244 4.67% 13-Nov-17 439,67,943 12.66% (1,08,330) 438,59,614 17,43% 14-Nov-17 2253,35,459 64.86% (931,32,430) 1322,03,029 52.54% Grand Total 3474,09,825 100% (957,96,986) 2516,12,839 100% Therefore he has argued that the ITC of ₹ 22.53 Crore (64.86% of ITC availed in November, 2017) was a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
redit 86,131 Total 1,84,27,561 The DGAP has further claimed that the Respondent had also availed Transitional Credit of Rs. in GSTR-3B as the extract of ITC Registrar as given below showed: Account Code Invoice Date Invoice No. SAP Document Number SAP Document Date Tax Amount Tax Type State 21800020 14-Nov-17 TRANS 1 ST 100673835 14-Nov-17 126,62,698 CGST Receivable Uttar Pradesh 21800021 14-Nov-17 Maharashtra 100629884 14-Nov-17 26,56,105 SGST/UTGST Receivable Maharashtra 21800026 14-Nov-17 Delhi 100630214 14-Nov-17 22,56,681 SGST/UTGST Receivable (C.G) Uttar Pradesh 21800026 14-Nov-17 Tamil Nadu 100630221 14-Nov-17 86,131 SGST/UTGST Receivable (C.G) Uttar Pradesh 21800026 14-Nov-17 Uttar Pradesh 100630224 14-Nov-17 4,62,043 SGST/UTGST Receivable (C.G) Uttar Pradesh Total 184,23,658 41. The DGAP has further mentioned that as the Respondent had already availed ITC on the original purchase of inputs, the same has been considered in the computation of denial of ITC to net turnover and th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
scount had been duly recorded in the invoice issued in respect of such supply, therefore, the GST was chargeable on actual transaction value after excluding any discount both conditional as well as unconditional and therefore, for the purpose of computation of profiteering menu price or MRP couldn t be considered whereas actual transaction value was the correct amount which had been considered for such computation, as the menu price was the maximum price at which an item might be sold but it was not the actual sale price. The DGAP has also argued that the SKU wise net realization from 01.10.2017 to 14.11.2017 (45 days) period was compared with post rate reduction sale from 15.11.2017 to 31.05.2018 to consider the magnitude of the various discounts offered by the Respondent both prior to the GST rate reduction and post GST rate reduction. He has further argued that vide e-mail dated 11.07.2018 the Respondent had informed that the net sales considered for computing the average sale price
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
at of the facts of the Respondent s case and hence both could not be compared. 43. We have carefully considered the Reports submitted by the DGAP, the Respondent s submissions and all the other material placed on record and it is revealed that the Respondent is engaged in the business of operating quick service restaurants under the name and style of Domino s Pizza and has a pan India presence with 1,128 outlets across 31 States and Union Territories in which the Respondent is duly registered under the GST and all his outlets were maintaining consistency from taste to overall experience and the prices of all his products as shown in the menu were similar throughout his restaurants exclusive of the GST. It has also been admitted by the Respondent that the Central Govt. vide its Notification No. 46/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 had reduced the rate of GST from 18% to 5% on restaurant services with the stipulation that no ITC would be available on the goods and service supplied
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
A), whereas the Pizza ordered by the above Applicant vide invoice dated 19.11.2017 (post reduction in GST rate) was Medium Veg Extravaganza Pizza Pan Crust (Type B), therefore, the complaint was made by the above Applicant in respect of two distinct and incomparable products and hence he could not be held accountable for profiteering as their prices could not be compared. However, it is revealed from the record that the Respondent had himself admitted before the DGAP, as has been mentioned in Para 4 (e) supra that the price of Type A Pizza was ₹ 440/- per unit and that of Type B was ₹ 470/- per unit respectively up to 14.11.2017, before the rate of tax was reduced and was ₹ 450/- and ₹ 485/- per unit respectively post 14.11.2017 after the rate of tax was reduced. Hence there was increase in the base price by ₹ 10/- in respect of Type A Pizza and ₹ 15/- in respect of the Type B Pizza. Perusal of Annexure23 attached by the DGAP with his Report also sh
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
enable as the Applicant No. 1 had specifically mentioned in the last Para of his complaint that Need your help to investigate pricing of these kind of large organisations where the prices are inflated with the reduction in the GST therefore the DGAP had jurisdiction to extend his investigation as the Respondent happened to be one of such large organisation which had obligation to pass on the benefit of tax reduction. Further, while investigating when it came to the knowledge of the DGAP that apart from the product mentioned in the complaint, the Respondent had supplied other products also on which the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax was required to be passed on but the Respondent had not passed it, the DGAP was legally bound to take its cognizance as no infringement of Section 171 can be allowed on the ground that no complaint had been made in respect of a particular product(s). The facts of the cases of M/s. Dinesh Mohan Bhardwaj Proprietor U. P. Sales & Services v. M/s. V
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
revealed that the GST rate of 5% had been charged on the increased base prices of these 314 items, after the reduction in the rate of tax w.e.f. 15.11.2017, however, because of the increase in the base prices the cum-tax price paid by the consumers had not been reduced commensurately for all the above items therefore the benefit of reduction had not been passed on by the Respondent in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the Act. 45. It has also been found from the perusal of the record that while computing the ITC as a percentage of the total taxable turnover of the Respondent, the ITC for the period w.e.f. July, 2017 to October, 2017, as mentioned in the GSTR-3B return, had been adjusted by excluding the amount of ITC of tax paid on inter-unit branch transfers as per the sale register and while determining the net taxable turnover of the Respondent during the period from July, 2017 to October, 2017, the total taxable turnover excluding the inter-unit branch transfers as
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rate benefit of reduction in the rate of tax from 18% to 5% had not been passed on to the customers by the Respondent. It is also established after analysis of the impact of denial of ITC and the details of the outward supplies that the amount of net higher sale realization due to increase in the base prices of the services, despite reduction in the GST rate from 18% to 5%, with denial of ITC or in other words, the profiteered amount was ₹ 41,42,97,635/- as per the very detailed, exhaustive and meticulous calculations made vide Annexure-23 of the Report by the DGAP. This amount was inclusive of ₹ 5.65/- which had been profiteered by the Respondent from the Applicant No. 1 47. The Respondent has alleged that no methodology has been prescribed for determination and calculation of profiteering. In this connection it would be relevant to point out that this Authority has already notified the Procedure and the Methodology vide its Notification dated 28.03.2018 under the provisio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
prices as stipulated in Section 171 will vary not only between the goods and the services but also within the various types of goods and services hence, no fixed methodology can be prescribed and it can only be determined in each case. The provisions of Section 171 are further very explicit which state that the recipient has to be given the benefits of tax reduction and the ITC on every supply commensurate with such reduction or the ITC. Hence, it was duty of the Respondent to ascertain on which of his products the rate of tax had been reduced and after taking in to account the impact of denial of ITC to what extent the prices should have been increased. The whole exercise needed no directions from this Authority as it involves simple mathematical calculation which the Respondent has been carrying on repeatedly at the time of fixing his prices. Hence, the contention of the Respondent made on this ground is unreasonable and hence it cannot be considered. 48. The contention of the Respon
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ore in the FY 2017-18 even if inflation was not taken in to account. Hence both the above contentions of the Respondent cannot be accepted being factually incorrect. The Respondent has also claimed that he used to raise prices 2-3 times in a year usually in July-September however, he has produced no evidence to prove his contention. There was no reason for him not to increase his price between July-September as implementation of the GST had no connection with the price rise on the basis of inflation. The Respondent was well aware of the inflation which he had encountered during the FY 2016-17 and therefore, he should have increased his prices anytime from April to October 2017 and had no reason to increase them from the midnight of 14/15th November, 2017 coinciding with the reduction in the rate of tax which shows that his action was malafide and illegal. Therefore, there is no doubt that he had raised the prices w.e.f. 15.11.2017 only with the intention of appropriating the benefit of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ng (QE) March 2018 as compared to the QE March 2017 profits had increased by 406% while the sales had increased only by 27% and the profits during the year 2017-18 had increased by 185% whereas the sales had shown increase of 17% as compared to the previous year. There is no ground not to rely upon the Financial Results certified by the Respondent himself and hence it can be safely concluded that this abnormal increase in the profits had occurred due to increase in the base prices and not due to increase in the sales. The theory of breakeven floated by the Respondent is completely false and wrong as there is no correlation between the figures of sales and the profits which have been supplied by the Respondent and by no stretch of imagination increase in sales by 17% during the FY 2017-18 can result in increase in profits by 185%. Therefore, the claims made by the Respondent vide Exhibit-8 of his submissions are wrong and hence cannot be relied upon. All claims of having suffered losses
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
taken in to account. There is also difference in the amount of ITC as per the ITC register and the GSTR-3B return and the Respondent has availed excess ITC of ₹ 89,75,175/- in the month of November, 2017. The Respondent has also availed ITC of ₹ 25,16,12,839/- on a single day on 14.11.2017 which does not appear to be correct as has been shown in Para 39 supra. The DGAP has considered the ITC on the basis of the record submitted by the Respondent himself and hence there appears to be no mistake in calculating the same. Therefore, the claim made by the Respondent that he was entitled to increase his prices by 7% instead of 5.59% due to denial of ITC is completely exaggerated and hence it cannot be accepted. The Respondent has also claimed that he had calculated the above ratio of 7% on the basis of P & L method adopted by the Malaysian Govt. but he has not explained the factors which he had taken in to account while applying the above method and hence the calculation made
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d and the price is the sole consideration for the supply. Further, Section 15 (3) (a) provides that the value of the supply shall not include any discount which is given before or at the time of the supply, if such discount has been duly recorded in the invoice issued in respect of such supply. 52. Therefore, as per the above provisions of Section 15 of the above Act, the value of the supply made by the Respondent can be calculated only on the basis of the actual price paid and not on the menu prices as generally products are not sold on the menu prices and it is the price up to which products can be sold. There is also no reason to add the discounts offered by the Respondent for calculating the total turnover as per the above provision and hence the claims made by the Respondent in this regard are frivolous and against the specific provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence they cannot be acceded to. The DGAP has also rightly compared the SKU wise net realization from 01.10.2017-14.11
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
whereas the central focus is the recipient or the customer who is required to be given both the above benefits commensurately when he buys even a single product. Denial of these benefits would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution if he is not given them on the ground that the Respondent had passed on the benefit on a particular product in place of another product which he may not buy. Each and every customer is entitled to receive both the above benefits without discrimination. Therefore, the provisions of antiprofiteering have to be applied at each and every Product/SKU level and the Respondent has no unfettered discretion to allow them selectively or as per his own whims and fancies. The Respondent must remember that the benefit of tax reduction and ITC has been granted by the Central and the State Governments to the public out of their own revenue and he is not required to pay it from his own account and therefore, he cannot pocket it on one or the other pretext. The Respondent
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ted where corresponding computation provision was inapplicable. In the above case the issue was whether the goodwill generated in a newly commenced business was an asset within the terms of Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whether this could be considered as capital gain subject to the Income Tax. The Hon ble Supreme Court had held that Section 45 of the Income Tax Act had defined capital gains under which the goodwill generated in a newly commenced business as an asset was not part of the definition. However, in the present case the law is clear and unambiguous. The reduction in the rate of tax comes into effect from the date of the Notification and this reduction in tax has to be passed on to the recipients as per the provisions of Section 171 of the Act. Therefore the above case does not help the Respondent. The case of Eternit Everest Ltd. v. Union Of India 1997 (89) ELT 28 (Mad.) = 1996 (6) TMI 90 – MADRAS HIGH COURT pertained to Section 11 (D) of the Central Excise and
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he Respondent. 54. The allegation of the Respondent that the profiteered amount has been inflated by adding 5% GST which he had collected on the increased prices and deposited with the Govt. is also not tenable as the above amount has been rightly held to be the profiteered amount by the DGAP since the benefit of tax reduction has been denied to the recipients by the Respondent by charging more prices than what he could have charged and on which additional GST has also been collected. Thus the Respondent had not only forced the recipients to pay more price over the permissible limit but has also compelled them to pay additional GST on this amount and had he not done so the recipients would have paid less price. As they have paid additional GST which they were not required to pay, it amounts to denial of passing on of the benefit to them. The Respondent must remember that Section 171 requires passing of the benefit of tax reduction to the recipients or the customers and does not authori
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ensure that the benefit has been passed on to each customer as the calculation would have to be made for all the SKUs together irrespective of the fact whether the base price of a product has been reduced or increased. The Respondent is under legal obligation to pass on both the above benefits to each customer and he cannot deny benefit to one customer on the ground that he has as an entity passed on the benefits to entire group of customers. Similarly benefit due to a customer cannot be denied to him on the claim that the same has been passed on to another customer on another product. There is no justification in the claim of the Respondent that the DGAP should also have taken in to account those SKUs in the case of which the price increase was within the permissible limit of 5.59%, since there was no profiteering in their case they were not required to be considered. Even if each restaurant owned by the Respondent was assessed separately for profiteering the conclusion would have be
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
me in to effect which shows that he had no intention of passing on the benefit and he wanted to appropriate it and this increase had no connection with the market conditions, consumer behaviour or the competition in the market. The Respondent has also tried to mislead by claiming that the Zero Methodology applied by the DGAP for calculating the profiteered amount was contrary to the stand which was taken by the GOI against anti-dumping margins as had been reported in the Report No. WT/DS141/AB/R dated 01.03.2001 of the Appellate Body of WTO vide which both the positive and the negative dumping margins were ordered to be taken in to account to determine their impact and the same methodology of netting off should also be applied in his case. In this connection it would be pertinent to mention that the argument advanced by the Respondent is farfetched as the provisions of Section 171 are nowhere comparable with the issues of anti-dumping margins and hence the same are fallacious and irrel
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
n the benefit commensurately to each customer on every supply. Therefore, the denial of benefit has to be calculated product wise. The Respondent has also failed to explain how the benefit would be passed to a customer if he had bought a single product on which the price had been increased. The contention of the Respondent that the products mentioned in an invoice generally included both type of products on which rate had been increased and reduced and the benefit has been passed as the reduction is more than the increase is completely farfetched and has no basis whatsoever and the hence the same is rejected as no such netting off can result in passing of the above benefits. 58 The Respondent has also stated that the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act could not be invoked in his case however, the contention of the Respondent is not tenable as mere charging of 5% GST after the rate reduction does not amount to compliance of the above Section as he was required not to increase th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e investigated together to determine whether the Respondent has complied with the provisions of Section 171 or not and hence they cannot be treated separately. There is no question of this Authority or the DGAP being price regulatory authorities as they have neither examined the pricing policies of the Respondent nor given him any direction to fix his prices in a particular manner and their role has been limited to the extent whether the Respondent has passed on the benefit of tax reduction or not as per the provisions of Section 171. The Respondent is free to fix his prices and profit margin depending upon the factors which he finds fit to be considered. Any scrutiny of price increase made by the Respondent which is not commensurate with the denial of ITC certainly falls in the ambit of profiteering and it cannot be termed as price control or price regulation and hence it does not violate the provisions of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. There is no restriction on the Responde
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s also informed that the Report filed by the DGAP had been duly considered by the Authority and it had been decided to give him opportunity to file submissions on the findings of the DGAP. A copy of the complaint made by the Applicant No. 1 was also supplied to him by the DGAP and a notice for investigation was also issued to him by the DGAP on 25.01.2018 asking him whether he admitted that he had passed on the benefit of tax reduction or not. Therefore, it is apparent that the Respondent was fully aware of the allegations which had been levelled against him as well as the findings of the DGAP in which he had been alleged to have resorted to profiteering. The Respondent had also filed detailed submissions to the Report on 13.08.2018, 21.08.2018 and 1 1.09.2018 and at no stage he had raised the issue of non-issuance of the show cause notice which shows that the present objection which has been raised by him on 17.09.2018 is as an afterthought to evade the consequences of his illegal act
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
. Debasis Das & others (2003) 4 SCC 557 = 2003 (3) TMI 664 – SUPREME COURT, Uma Nath Pandey & others v. State of UP (2009) 12 SCC 40, Collector of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd. 1994 (71) ELT 324 = 2009 (3) TMI 526 – SUPREME COURT, Vasta Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner 2018 (360) ELT 234 = 2018 (1) TMI 1437 – MADRAS HIGH COURT, Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 (320) ELT 3 = 2015 (5) TMI 500 – SUPREME COURT, Anrak Aluminium Ltd. v. Commissioner 2017 (4) GSTL 248 = 2017 (5) TMI 1200 – CESTAT HYDERABAD and Goyal Tobbaco v. Commissioner 2015 (329) ELT 619 = 2015 (11) TMI 249 – CESTAT NEW DELHI cited by the Respondent in his support ,are not being relied upon. 60. The Respondent has repeatedly quoted the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by this Authority in the case of Jijrushu N. Bhattacharya v. NP Foods = 2018 (10) TMI 1338 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY on the ground that the facts of that case were exactly similar to the case of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on 171 of the Act. Accordingly, in the present case the benefit of denial of ITC works out to be 5.59% and as has been discussed in Para 10 above, the Respondent could have increased his prices to the extent of 5.59%. However, as is apparent from Annexure-23 of the DGAP s Report the prices of the products have been increased by the Respondent from 5.75% to 84.55%. The DGAP has therefore, considered only those products on which there has been increase of more than 5.59%, accordingly 170 products have been impacted and the profiteered amount on these products has been rightly computed as ₹ 41,42,97,635/-. 61. In view of the above discussion it is held that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to his recipients, commensurate to the denial of ITC, during the period between 15.11.2017 to 31.05.2018 and accordingly, the quantum of denial of such benefit or the profiteered amount illegally earned by the Respondent is determined as ₹ 41,42,97
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
und while the balance will be deposited in the State CWFs as shown in the table given below:- S.No. State (Place of Supply) Profiteering Rs. 1 Andhra Pradesh 27,42 588 2 Arunachal Pradesh 1,30,898.50 3 Assam 22,72,669 4 Bihar 31,19,420.50 5 Chandigarh 18,84,362 6 Chhattisgarh 19,55,496.50 7 Dadra and Nagar Haveli 1,07,651.50 8 Daman & Diu 1 51,819 9 Delhi 2,39,88,346 10 Goa 21,14,117 11 12 Gujarat 1,04,94,079 Haryana 1,23,35,538 13 Himachal Pradesh 13,58,342.50 14 Jammu & Kashmir 12,93,382 15 Jharkhand 15,80,017 16 Karnataka 2,53,24,454.675 17 Kerala 22 97 540.50 18 Madhya Pradesh 49,34 225 19 Maharashtra 3,95,74,886.50 20 Meghalaya 2,64,126 21 Nagaland 1,41,545.50 22 Odisha 15 68,858 23 Pondicherry 3,40,605 24 Punjab 93,13,692 25 Rajasthan 47,19,641.50 26 Sikkim 3,34,289.50 27 Tamil Nadu 1,31,97,302.50 28 Telangana 86,71,955 29 Uttar Pradesh 1,97,09,500.50 30 Uttarakhand 29,17 668.50 31 West Bengal 83,09,797 Total 20,71,48,814.67 62. The concerned Central and State GST Commiss
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
