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 that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST on Paints, from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 27-7-2018 and instead had increased the base prices of the paints sold by him thus denying the benefit of commensurate reduction in the cum-tax price (inclusive of 18% GST) to the recipients. The DGAP found that though there was a reduction in the rate of tax from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 27-7-2018 on the products, the Respondent had increased his base prices w.e.f. 27-7-2018. The DGAP had found that the profiteered amount was Rs. 3,76,360/- and that all these products were supplied only in the state of Karnataka.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that the mathematical methodology adopted by the DGAP is not correct, logical, appropriate and in consonance with the provisions of Section 171, as such, the reports of the DGAP are not accepted. The authority directed the DGAP to reinvestigate the case by comparing the average pre rate reduction base prices of the products which were impacted by the tax rate reduction w.e.f. 27-7-2018 with the actual post rate reduction base prices of the impacted products.— Rahul Sharma Vs. Mataji Paints and Hardware [2020] 25 TAXLOK.COM 090 (NAPA)