Anti-Profiteering — The brief facts of the present case are that an application dated 22.01.201d was filed by the Applicant No. 1 before the Standing Committee constituted under Rule 128 of the above Rules alleging that the Respondent No. 1 had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax as he had increased the MRP of “Melaglow Rich (Niacinamide) Depigmentation & Glow Restoration Cream’ (here-in-after referred to as the product) from Rs.365/- to Rs.415/- per unit post implementation of the GST.

Held that— the above Respondent has issued incorrect invoices while selling the above product to his customers as he had not correctly shown the basic price which he should have legally charged from them. The Respondent has also compelled them to pay additional GST on the increased price through the incorrect tax invoices which would have otherwise resulted in further benefit to the customers which he has failed to pass on. It is also established from the record that the Respondent has deliberately and consciously acted in contravention of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 by issuing incorrect invoices which is an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the above Act. Hence, he is liable for imposition of penalty under the above Section read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017. —R.K. Gupta Vs. Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.[2019] 10 TAXLOK.COM 004 (NAPA)