The DGAP has not recorded any finding in his above Report whether appellant was eligible for refund of the profiteered amount or not. The DGAP is directed to conduct further investigation in the present case and submit fresh Report
Anti-profiteering— Brief facts of the case are that an application was filed, under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 by the Applicant alleging profiteering by the Respondent, by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, vide Notification No. 46/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017, by way of commensurate reduction in the price, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The Applicant had alleged that the Respondent increased the base price of “Dinner Veg.” from Rs. 862/- to Rs. 929/- and that of “Dinner Non-Veg.” from Rs. 969/- to Rs. 1039/- when the GST rate was reduced from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017.
Comparing of the average pre rate reduction base prices with the average post rate reduction base prices runs completely contrary to the methodology determined by this Authority as well as the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act. It also leads to the conclusion that the profiteered amount calculated by the DGAP on the basis of the above methodology is not accurate and hence, the same cannot be accepted to be correct. Moreover, the quantum of benefit computed by the DGAP on each SKU which is required to be passed on to the eligible buyers is also not correct.
Held that— the Report furnished by the DGAP cannot be accepted and therefore, the DGAP is directed to conduct further investigation in the present case under Rule 133 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.