Sh. Raman Khaira, Director General Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Versus M/s. Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd.,
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1615 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 90 (N. A. P. A.)
NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – NAPA
Dated:- 29-10-2018
11/2018
GST
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 Commissioner for the Applicant No. 2.
Sh. Dharmender Gupta, Director (Tax) for the Respondent No. 1
None for the Respondents No. 2 & 3.
ORDER
1. This report dated 30.07.2018 has been received from the Applicant No. 2, i.e. Director General of Safeguards (DGSG), now re-designated as Director General Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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. Devyani International Limited, Gurugram, another 300 stores through M/s. Sapphire Foods, Mumbai, in south India and around 100 stores were being directly operated by the Respondent No. 1. The above Applicant has also submitted that in the absence of any specific evidence of profiteering against a specific supplier of M/s. KFC, he was not in a position to initiate any investigation in the matter. He had further submitted that it was also not practical to initiate investig
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST 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 No. 1 and it is obvious from the narration of the facts stated above 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. Accordingly, the application filed by the Applicant seeking action against the Respondents on account of alleged violation of the provisio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =