Anti-Profiteering — The Applicant alleged that the Respondent did not reduce the selling price of “Samsung 80 CM (32 inches) HD ready LED TV 32FH4003”, when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019, vide Notification No.24/2018 Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2018 and the price of the product remained the same after tax reduction and thus the benefit of reduction in the GST rate was not passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the price, in terms of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
the profiteered amount is determined as Rs. 37,85,342/-as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the above Rules as has been computed vide Annexure-18 of the Report dated 12.09.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately in terms of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the above Rules. The Respondent is also directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 37,85,342/- in the CWF of the Central and the concerned State Government, as the recipients are not identifiable, as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c) of the above Rules along with 18% interest payable from the dates from which the above amount was realised by the Respondent from his recipients till the date of its deposit.
The Respondent has denied the benefit of tax reduction to the customers in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus profiteered as per the explanation attached to Section 171 of the above Act. Therefore, he is apparently liable for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, a show cause notice be issued directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under the above sub-Section should not be imposed on him. — Rahul Sharma, M/S. Local Circle (I) Pvt. Ltd., Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Indirect Taxes And Customs Vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.  21 TAXLOK.COM 080 (NAPA)