Anti-Profiteering — Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— The DGAP submitted its report after a detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6). An application was filed alleging that Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate on "Kiwi Shoe Polish" from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15-11-2017 and had instead increased the base price of the impugned product supplied by him so that there was no reduction in the final price of the item despite the reduction in the rate of tax. The DGAP has concluded that the base prices of the SKUs of the above product were increased and the commensurate benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15-11-2017 was not passed on to the recipients by all the three Respondents and hence all the Respondents have profiteered.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that report of the DGAP cannot be accepted and directed the DGAP to reinvestigate the case in entirety including computing the profiteered amount afresh, after comparing the average pre-tax rate reduction base prices with the actual post-tax rate reduction prices in respect of all the supplies; verification of contention of Respondent that he had reduced the prices of his various products.—Ajay Jagga Vs. Bhatia Confectioners  26 TAXLOK.COM 083 (NAPA)