2018 (10) TMI 1615 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 90 (N. A. P. A.) – Profiteering – restaurant service – benefit of reduction of tax from 18% to 5% not passed to customers – it was also alleged that Respondent was illegally profiteering by appropriating the amount of reduction of tax by fleecing the poor customers as he was denying them the benefit of reduction – Held that:- The investigation conducted in the matter by the Applicant No. 2 against the Respondent No. 1 could not establish profiteering for want of credible evidence and hence no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 could be established – there are no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 – application dismissed. – 11/2018 Dated:- 29-10-2018 – SH. B.N. SHARMA, CHAIRMAN SH. J. C. CHAUHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER SMT. R. BHAGYADEVI, TECHNICAL MEMBER SH. AMAND SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER None for the Applicant No. 1. Sh. Manoranjan Singh, Assistant Com
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g by appropriating the amount of reduction of tax by fleecing the poor customers as he was denying them the benefit of reduction and therefore action should be taken against him. 2. In his report dated 30.07.2018, the Applicant No. 2 has stated that vide his emails dated 04.05.2018, 21.05.2018 and 18.07.2018, the Applicant No. 1 was requested to provide the pre and post GST invoices of the products sold by the Respondent No. 1 and the details like name and address of the concerned outlet being run by the above Respondent regarding which the allegation of profiteering had been made so that the matter could be investigated, however, no reply was received from him. He has also stated that on preliminary enquiry from the internet, it was gathered that there were more than 700 outlets in India of the KFC brand which was a subsidiary of US based M/S Yum! Brand Inc. . The Applicant No. 1 has further stated that the above Brand was operating around 300 stores in northern India through M/s. Dev
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
. 1 did not appear. The Applicant No. 2 was represented by Sh. Manoranjan Singh, Assistant Commissioner and the Respondent No. 1 was represented by Sh. Dharmender Gupta, Director (Tax). The Respondents No. 2 and 3 also did not appear. 4. The Respondent No. 1 vide his written submission dated 16.08.2018 and 06.09.2018 has stated that the Applicant No. 2 in his report dated 30.07.2018 had not recommended initiation of proceedings against him under section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as there was no specific evidence of profiteering against him. 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. 1, 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
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =