Anti-Profiteering — In the instant case applicant alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax, when she had bought 'Bathing Bar' and 'Instant Drink Powder 50 Gms. from the Respondent and such Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017.

Held that—The actual pre-GST tax rate on the above products was not 27% (12.5%Excise Duty + 14.5% VAT), as had been mentioned by the Applicant No.1 in her applications, but it was 14.5% (Nil Central Excise Duty+ 14.5% VAT) in the case of “Bathing Bar” and 16.5 % (2% Central Excise Duty + 14.5% VAT) in the case of “Instant Drink Powder 50 Gms.” It is also revealed that the Respondent was procuring both the above products on interstate basis from their sole vendors and this tax liability had increased by 3.5% post GST from 14.5% to 18% w.eJ 01.07.2017 and therefore, he had suffered loss on the supply of both the products in question - the base price of these products had been reduced by the Respondent to maintain the same MRP (Pre GST MRP) inspite of the increase in the tax rate of both the above products. The anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Tax Act, 2017 are not attracted in the present case.

We thus find that since the reduction in the base prices of these products is more than the additional ITC eligible thereon, the allegation of profiteering is not established. it is clear that the Respondent has not contravened the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence there is no merit in the applications filed by the Applicant No. 1 and the same are accordingly dismissed.[SMT. MANDALIKA SAKUNTHALA AND DIRECTOR GENERAL ANTI-PROFITEERING, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI VERSUS MIS FABINDIA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.] [NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY][2018] 6 TAXLOK.COM 26 (NAPC)