Anti-Profiteering — The brief facts of the present case are that a reference was received by the DGAP from the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering on 27.03.2019 recommending a detailed investigation in respect of an application, originally examined by the Maharashtra State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering (Annex-I). The Applicant had filed an application under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules 2017, alleging profiteering in respect of restaurant service supplied by the Respondent (Franchisee of M/s. Subway Systems India Pvt. Ltd.). In the application, it was alleged that despite the reduction in the rate of GST from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, the Respondent had not passed on the commensurate benefit since he has increased the base prices of his products. Held that— It is evident from facts that 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 he has thus resorted to profiteering. Hence, he has committed an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable to penal action under the provisions of the above Section. — State Tax Officer, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs Vs. Cilantro Diners Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 22 TAXLOK.COM 091 (NAPA)