TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profiteering by appropriating the amount of reduction of tax by fleecing the poor customers as he was denying them the benefit of reduction - Held that:- The investigation conducted in the matter by the Applicant No. 2 against the Respondent No. 1 could not establish profiteering for want of credible evidence and hence no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 could be est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case are that the Applicant No. 1 vide his email dated 12.12.2017 had alleged that the Respondent No. 1 had not passed on the benefit of reduction of tax from 18% to 5% to his customers. He had also alleged that the Respondent No. 1 was supplying him Burger @ ₹ 32/- per unit and after adding 18% GST he was paying about ₹ 40/- per unit before the tax was reduced w.e.f. 15.11.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted, however, no reply was received from him. He has also stated that on preliminary enquiry from the internet, it was gathered that there were more than 700 outlets in India of the KFC brand which was a subsidiary of US based M/S Yum! Brand Inc. . The Applicant No. 1 has further stated that the above Brand was operating around 300 stores in northern India through M/s. Devyani International Lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter considering the above Report filed by the Applicant No. 2 both the interested parties were issued notices to attend the hearing before this Authority. However, the Applicant No. 1 did not appear. The Applicant No. 2 was represented by Sh. Manoranjan Singh, Assistant Commissioner and the Respondent No. 1 was represented by Sh. Dharmender Gupta, Director (Tax). The Respondents No. 2 and 3 also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is obvious from the narration of the facts stated above that the investigation conducted in the matter by the Applicant No. 2 against the Respondent No. 1 could not establish profiteering for want of credible evidence and hence no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 could be established. Accordingly, the application filed by the Applicant seeking action against the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
