TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Rules, 2017 - Held that:- The Applicant No. 1 had not supplied details of the products or the invoices vide which he had bought them from the Respondent inspite of repeated requests made by the Applicant No. 2 and therefore, the investigation conducted in the allegation levelled by the Applicant No. 2 against the Respondent could not establish profiteering for want of cogent and reliable evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (DGAP), under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 1 through his email (rss342786@tatamotors.com) dated 22.11.17 mentioning neither his name nor the contact address had alleged profiteering against the above Respondent. The above Applicant in his initial complaint had informed that the Respondent had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Applicant No. 2 has further stated that the Respondent was a direct selling Company with more than 5,50,000 ABOs and was selling about 140 products covering five categories and had nationwide presence with over 130 sale offices, 4 regional mother warehouses, 3 regional hubs and 34 city warehouses. The Applicant No. 1 in his report has held that the Applicant No. 1 had neither provided the des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt vide his written submission dated 26.09.2018 has inter-alia stated that the Applicant No. 2 in his report dated 30.07.2018 had not recommended initiation of proceedings against him under section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as there was no specific evidence of profiteering against him. Amongst other things, he has also stated that the above Applicant had also recommended that no meaningful investi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 has been found in this case. Accordingly, the application filed by the Applicant requesting for action against the Respondent for alleged violation of the provisions of the above Section is not maintainable and hence the same is dismissed. A copy of this order shall be sent to both the Applicants and the Respondent free of cost. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
