There is a need for revisiting the investigation and recomputation of the profiteered amount. this Authority directs the DGAP to reinvestigate the present case
Anti-profiteering— The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 23.11.2017 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, by Ms. Neeru Varshney before the Standing Committee vide which she alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST to her when she had purchased “Maybelline FIT Me foundation” (hereinafter referred to as “the Product”) from the Respondent. It was also stated that the GST on the product was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017.
Since the data submitted by the Respondent was still not in the requisite format and further details were required to verify and incorporate Respondent’s submissions (including objections of the mathematical computation done by the DGAP), the Respondent was permitted time up to 18.02.2020 to furnish the requisite details in a format that was required for incorporating his submissions and contentions and for computing the quantum of profiteering accordingly.
Held that— this Authority directs the DGAP to reinvestigate the present case as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this Order. under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules 2017 and to furnish his Report accordingly under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017 within a period of three months. It is further directed that the Respondent shall fully cooperate during the course of the investigation to be carried out by the DGAP and shall supply the requisite data/information in the requisite format as and when required by the DGAP