2018 (10) TMI 1614 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 509 (N. A. P. A.) – Profiteering – benefit of reduction in the GST rates not passed to customers – Amway Business Owners (ABOs). – Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 – Held that:- The Applicant No. 1 had not supplied details of the products or the invoices vide which he had bought them from the Respondent inspite of repeated requests made by the Applicant No. 2 and therefore, the investigation conducted in the allegation levelled by the Applicant No. 2 against the Respondent could not establish profiteering for want of cogent and reliable evidence and hence no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 has been found in this case – There are no violation of provisions – application dismissed. – 12/2018 Dated:- 29-10-2018 – SH. B.N. SHARMA, CHAIRMAN, SH. J. C. CHAUHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER, SMT. R. BHAGYADEVI, TECHNICAL MEMBER, SH. AMAND SHAH, TECHNICAL M
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Report has stated that vide emails dated 09.05.2018, 21.05.2018 and 09.07.2018, the Applicant No. 1 at the available Email Id, was requested to provide the name and address of the supplier against whom the complaint was made, and to provide the pre-GST and post-GST amount charged by the supplier and the invoices evidencing the same, however no reply was received from the Applicant No. 1. He has also stated that the above Applicant was also contacted on the phone number available in his application and he had provided a new email id, on which he was again requested to send the details however, no reply was received from him. The Applicant No. 2 has further stated that the Respondent was a direct selling Company with more than 5,50,000 ABOs and was selling about 140 products covering five categories and had nationwide presence with over 130 sale offices, 4 regional mother warehouses, 3 regional hubs and 34 city warehouses. The Applicant No. 1 in his report has held that the Applicant No
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ainst him under section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as there was no specific evidence of profiteering against him. Amongst other things, he has also stated that the above Applicant had also recommended that no meaningful investigation could be conducted against him. He has further stated that in view of the report submitted by the Applicant No. 2, the allegation of profiteering had not been proved against him and therefore the present proceeding should be dropped. 5. We have carefully considered the Report filed by the Applicant No. 2 as well as the submissions made by the Respondent and it is revealed from the facts stated above that the Applicant No. 1 had not supplied details of the products or the invoices vide which he had bought them from the Respondent inspite of repeated requests made by the Applicant No. 2 and therefore, the investigation conducted in the allegation levelled by the Applicant No. 2 against the Respondent could not establish profiteering for want of cogent and rel
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =