TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selling these products and hence, the Respondent cannot invent additional costs to be taken in to account while computing the profiteered amount. There is also no evidence on record to show that the sales made by the Respondent were on discount as all the sales mentioned in Annexure-Il were normal sales as has been admitted by the Respondent himself vide Annexure-B. Therefore, the above claim of the Respondent is unreasonable, unsubstantiated and far-fetched which cannot be accepted, hence an amount of ₹ 13,13,441/- cannot be reduced from the profiteered amount on this ground. The Respondent has also claimed that he had sold some of the products mentioned in Annexure-III, on discounted comparable sale prices below the cost of purchase and had made a nominal profit as compared to the regular profit. The said nominal profit earned was not even sufficient to recover the variable costs incurred by the Respondent. Therefore, in view of the above reason, profiteering amounting to ₹ 14,86,332/- should be excluded from the total profiteered amount. To further establish his claim made vide Annexure-Ill the Respondent has also submitted Annexure-C alongwith his submissions dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 months from the date of passing of this order failing which it shall be recovered by the concerned CGST/SGST Commissioners as per the provisions of the CGST/SGST Acts. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has denied benefit of rate reduction to the buyers of his products 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 for violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) during the period from 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 and therefore, he is apparently liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 171 (3A) of the above Act. However, perusal of the provisions of Section 171 (3A) under which penalty has been prescribed for the above violation shows that it has been inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.01.2020 vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 and it was not in operation during the period from 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 when the Respondent had committed the above violation and hence, the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, notice for imposition of penalty is not required to be iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s furnish all the supporting documents. The Respondent was also given opportunity to inspect the nonconfidential evidence/information which formed the basis of the investigation from 18.07.2019 to 22.07.2019, which the Respondent had availed of and inspected the documents. 4. The DGAP has also submitted that in response to the above notice, the Respondent did not submit the requisite documents on due date and hence, reminders were issued to him. The Respondent did not submit complete documents even after several reminders, therefore, Summons under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 132 of the above Rules were issued to Sh. Pramod Dangaich, Chief Financial Officer to appear in the office of the DGAP on 11.11.2019 and submit the requisite details/documents. In compliance to the Summons, Shri Pramod Dangaich did not appear in the office of the DGAP on 11.11.2019 but submitted certain details vide e-mail dated 12.11.2019. He was again issued 2nd Summons to appear in the office of the DGAP on 18.11.2019 and to submit the pending documents. Shi Pramod Dangaich had appeared in the office of the DGAP on 22.11.2019 and submitted the details sought vide Summons dated 13.11.2019. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST Act, 2017 to ascertain whether the present case was a case of profiteering or not. Section 171(1) reads as Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Thus, the legal requirement of the above provision was abundantly clear that in the event of benefit of ITC or reduction in the rate of tax, there must follow a commensurate reduction in the prices of the goods or services being supplied by a registered person and that the final price being changed for each supply had to be reduced commensurately with the extent of benefit and that there was no other legally tenable mode of passing on such benefits of rate reduction or ITC to the recipients/consumers. 11. The DGAP in his report has also mentioned that on the issue of determination and quantification of profiteering by the Respondent, it appeared that the Respondent had increased the base prices of the DSLR Cameras and Power Banks when the rate of GST was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019, so that the commensurate benefit of GST rate reduction was not passed on to the recipients by way of commensu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total Invoice Value K 49460.31 11. Actual Selling price per unit (post rate reduction-with GST) L=K/J 49460.31 12. Excess amount charged or profiteering M=L-G 2280.34 13 Total Profiteering N=M*J 2280.34 12. The DGAP has further mentioned that as per the Table-A, it was clear that the Respondent had not reduced the selling price of the Canon DSLR 200D Dual Kit (18-55/55-250) Camera , when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019, vide Notification No. 24/2018 Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2018 and thus, he had profiteered an amount of ₹ 2280.34 on a particular invoice by not passing on the benefit of reduction in GST rate to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in the price, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. On the basis of above calculation as has been illustrated in Table-A above, the DGAP has calcul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chandigarh 122646 3 06 Haryana 749887 4 07 Delhi 3838960 5 08 Rajasthan 42931 6 09 Uttar Pradesh 702994 7 19 West Bengal 27159 8 23 Madhya Pradesh 352 9 24 Gujarat 2965100 10 27 Maharashtra 5805543 11 29 Karnataka 1896266 12 30 Goa 32010 13 33 Tamil Nadu 1230982 14 36 Telangana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e variation in the sale prices of the products (inclusive of GST) depended upon various business and external factors, such as demand and supply, competition pricing, e-commerce market place, location of the store, brand prices / manufacturer s pricing policy etc. The Respondent had also taken his product pricing decisions on the basis of the above factors. Accordingly, prices of the products varied from store to store and from period to period. c. That the actual sale prices during the period from January 2019 to June 2019 were purely derived based on the commercial factors and tax played a very little or no role in determining the prices of the products. The DGAP had failed to appreciate that different factors at different points in time affected the costing and pricing of a product and therefore, no straitjacket formula could be used for either arriving at a base price or for calculating profiteering. d. That the business as a whole alongwith external variable factors needed to be considered, while determining the impact (if any) of profiteering on account of reduction in GST rate Accordingly, business minded approach needed to be adopted while interpreting the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as purely based on the commercial factors. The same was also apparent from the fact that as per books of account for the said period, total profit earned from the sale of digital cameras was equivalent to the aforementioned alleged profiteered amount. These facts clearly showed that the Respondent had not made any excess profit on account of GST rate reduction. Furthermore, the nominal profit made on account of digital cameras was sufficient enough to meet only the variable expenses relating to the business. Accordingly, the profiteering demand proposed in the Report towards digital cameras was totally baseless and was liable to be dropped. g. That vide Notification No. 24/2018 dated 31.12.2018, GST rate with respect to Power Banks has been notified as follows:- HSN Prior to 1 January 2019 Post 1 January 2019 Entry description Rate Entry description Rate 8507 Entry 139: Electric accumulators, including separators thereof, whether or not rectangular (including square) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od under consideration, the Customs Authorities had raised the differential Customs Duty demand of 10%, on the ground that the said products were subjected to IGST @ 28% and not 18%. The Respondent was in process of adjudication in this regard. j. That Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act only provided this Authority to collect the profiteered amount on account of reduction in GST rate, where commensurate benefit has not been transferred to the customers. The above Section, did not provide any guidelines, mechanism or methodology for determining the profiteering amount. The anti-profiteering provisions were in the nature of anti-abuse provisions. The said provisions could not be construed in a manner that restricted the right to free trade and determination of sale prices based on the free price market principles. Computation of profiteering, without considering the business scenarios, costs (direct and indirect) and pricing mechanism amounted to price administration. The aim of Section 171 of the CGST Act was not to administer/fix the sale prices, but to prevent profiteering. The business as a whole and overall profit/loss of the Respondent needed to be evaluated while determining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... December 2018 - sale transaction (A) 100 28 128 January 2019 - sale transaction (as alleged in Report) (B) 108 20 128 January 2019 - ideal sale transaction (without involvement of profiteering) (C) 100 18 118 Profiteering computation as per Report (B)-(C) 8 2 10 n. That as per the above illustration, the DGAP had computed the proposed demand by comparing total invoice value for actual sale transactions for the period from January, 2019 to June, 2019 with total invoice value of ideal sale transactions without involving profiteering (i.e. (B) - (C) in the present illustration). In view of the same, the demand amount consisted of excess taxable sale value as well as excess CST collected from the customers. In the present illustration, the demand amount consisted of excess taxable sale price (i.e. ₹ 8/-) plus excess GST collected (i.e. ₹ 2/-) which amounted to total de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equested that the proposed demand to the extent of INR 28,75,832/should be dropped. q. That the Respondent was engaged in the business of retail sale of electronic products. With respect to electronic products, technology got upgraded on a regular basis. In order to clear the inventory of non-moving or obsolete technology products, the Respondent was selling the said products below their cost prices. The DGAP has considered sale transactions made during the period from January, 2019 to June, 2019 for computation of proposed demand amount. During the said period, the Respondent had sold certain products (specified article codes) (i.e. non-moving and / or obsolete technology products) much below their respective cost of purchase. The Respondent had drastically reduced the sale prices (below the cost of purchase) in order to clear the inventory. The variation in sale prices of the said products was completely dependent on the business scenarios and the market factors. The GST did not play any role in determining the sale prices of the said products. The Respondent had sold the said products at loss to the customers. Hence, there wasn t any profiteering in respect of the said good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated that any reduction in the rate of tax or the benefit of input tax credit had to be passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices. b. That the contention of the Respondent that the prices of his products were lower due to the festival season during December, 2018 was frivolous and unacceptable. Firstly, the contention of the Respondent appeared to be an afterthought as the Respondent had failed to submit this fact during the investigation. Secondly, the DGAP was following a common procedure for computing profiteering by taking average base price of one month before rate reduction and comparing the same with actual sale price for each transaction during post rate reduction period. Moreover, almost throughout the year, festive seasons were going on in the country and month of December had no specific relevance in this regard. Furthermore, the Respondent had increased the base prices of the products overnight i.e. from 01.01.2019, in such a manner that even with reduction in the rate of tax, the cum-tax selling price remained unchanged which the Respondent had now claimed as increase due to end of festive season. Though the GST had no role to play in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er or not rectangular (including square) other than Lithium-ion battery The said Notification inserted an Entry No. 376AA in Schedule Ill for Lithium-ion batteries classifiable under Chapter Subheading 8507 60 00. By this insertion in Schedule Ill, Lithium-ion batteries became chargeable to 18% GST. In December 2018, further amendment was made vide Notification No. 24/2018 Central Tax (Rate) dated 31 .12.2018 to the Entry No. 139 of Schedule IV whereby, the description of goods against Entry No. 139 (Chapter Heading 85.07) was amended to read as Electric accumulators, including separators thereof, whether or not rectangular (including square) other than Lithium-ion battery and other Lithium-ion accumulators including Lithium-ion Power Banks. Therefore, Lithium-ion Power Bank (85.07) was not chargeable to 28% GST rate. By the same Notification, the goods Lithium-ion accumulators. (other than battery) including lithium-ion power bank falling under Chapter Heading 85.07 was inserted as new Entry No. 376AAA in Schedule Ill where the GST rate was 18%. From the above changes to the GST rates, it was seen that the goods Lithium-ion battery and Lithium-ion accumulator including L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not to administer/fix the sale prices as it nowhere sought to fix the prices at which the goods and services ought to have been supplied. The said Section only required the supplier to pass on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax or the benefit of ITC to the recipients by reducing the prices commensurately and did not require him to seek any approval to conduct trade or fix prices of the products supplied by him. Further the act of profiteering had got nothing to do with the profit making or the loss making status of the supplier. f. That the DGAP had not examined the increase in prices due to various reasons. Every supplier of goods and services was free to increase the price of his supply depending upon the various components affecting the cost of production or supply. But under the provisions of the Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, no supplier could increase the base prices of the products overnight in such a manner that even with reduction in the rate of tax, the cum-tax selling price would remain unchanged. Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 was very clear wherein it stated that any reduction in the rate of tax or the benefit of ITC had to be passed on to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lustrated by the DGAP in the following Table:- Invoice No. SLA163030000438 Invoice Date 03.01.2019 Goods Description Power Bank Quantity 1 Type of sale Normal Discount, if any ----- Base selling price (commensurate) 385.94 Base selling price (actual) 418.64 Cost price 774.03 Upon perusal of the above Table, it could be seen that the base selling price (commensurate) arrived at by the DGAP was based on the average of entire sales of that Power Bank during December, 2018 whereas the Respondent was claiming cost price almost double to that of base selling price which appeared to be unusual as the cost price could not be double of the selling price. Further, the Respondent was claiming high cost price, whereas no document had been submitted by the Respondent in support of his claim. Besides, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales return (Column U to Y ) Gross profiteering demand if adjustment of sales return is given INR 1,91,20,911 INR 1,57,27,429 If the said adjustment towards sales return (credit notes) was provided, then proposed demand should be reduced by ₹ 33,93,482/- (gross with tax) / ₹ 28,75,832/- (net without tax) as per Annexure-A. Accordingly, the said demand should be dropped. c. That at the outset, the Respondent had not challenged the computation of the average sale prices computed for December, 2019. It was also submitted that the technology of the electronic products under consideration i.e. Digital Cameras and Power Banks had been upgraded frequently. The products under consideration were old technology products, whose stock could not be sold due to technology upgrade. In order to sell the stock of the said goods, it was decided to sell them at discounted/reduced prices, which were much below the original purchase cost of the said products. Such scenarios were not unusual in the electronic goods trading industry. As per the Annexure-Il attached with the submissions dated 03.02.2020, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cost (Annexure-3), excel worksheet as well as screenshot from the SAP system confirming the invoice wise sale value and cost mentioned in Annexure-3, SAP screenshot of cost movement (moving average cost) for sample transactions mentioned in Annexure-3 and sample purchase invoices in support of cost amount mentioned in Annexure-3. f. That vide submissions dated 03.02.2020 (Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13), it was submitted that the sale prices of the products during the period under consideration were determined after taking into consideration various commercial factors (such as demand vs supply, pricing adopted by competition and e-commerce operator, technology, slow moving / non-moving inventory status, season discount / pricing, promotion/discount offers etc.) as well as the tax rate change and it was requested to consider the commercial factors as well while computing the impact of tax rate change, instead of computing the profiteering amount as per the straitjacket formula. However, the DGAP has straightaway rejected the aforementioned submissions, completely disregarding the various commercial factors playing role in determination of pricing. The Respondent has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revealed from the plain reading of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 that it deals with two situations one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second about the passing on the benefit of the ITC. On the issue of reduction in the tax rate, it is apparent from the record that there has been a reduction in the rate of tax from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 31.12.2018, on the Digital Cameras and Power Banks being supplied by the Respondent, vide Notification No. 24/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2018. Therefore, the Respondent is liable to pass on the benefit of tax reduction to his customers in terms of Section 171 (1) of the above Act. It is also apparent that the DGAP has carried out the present investigation w.e.f. 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019. 24. It is also evident that the Respondent has been selling different variants of Digital Cameras and Power Banks during the period from 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 to his customers. Upon comparing the average selling prices as per the details of transactions submitted by the Respondent for the pre rate reduction period from 01.12.2018 to 31.12.2018 and 01.09.2018 to 30.11.2018 (in respect of those product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h his Report, on the basis of which commensurate base prices post rate reduction were calculated in respect of the same products and compared with the invoice wise post rate reduction actual base prices of these products, as per the computation illustrated in Table-A supra. The average pre rate reduction base price of each product was required to be compared with the actual post rate reduction base price of the same product as the benefit was required to be passed on each product to each customer. In case average to average base price is compared for both the periods, the customers who have purchased a particular product on the base price which is more than the commensurate base price, would not get the benefit of tax reduction. Such a comparison would be against the provisions of Section 171 as well as Article 14 of the Constitution which require that each customer has to be passed on the benefit of tax reduction on each purchase made by him. On the basis of the aforesaid pre and post-reduction GST rates and the details of outward taxable supplies (other than zero rated, nil rated and exempted supplies) of the above goods sold during the period from 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019, as ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nit of construction or service to every buyer and in case they are not passed on, the quantum of denial of these benefit or the profiteered amount has to be computed for which investigation has to be conducted in respect of all such SKUs/units/services by the DGAP. What would be the profiteered amount has been clearly defined in the explanation attached to Section 171 quoted above. These benefits can also not be passed on at the entity/organisation/branch/invoice/product/business vertical level as they have to be passed on to each and every buyer at each SKU/unit/service level by treating them equally. The above provision also mentions any supply which connotes each taxable supply made to each recipient thereby making it evident that a supplier cannot claim that he has passed on more benefit to one customer on a particular product therefore he would pass less benefit or no benefit to another customer than what is actually due to that customer, on another product. Each customer is entitled to receive the benefit of tax reduction or ITC on each SKU or unit or service purchased by him subject to his eligibility. The term commensurate mentioned in the above Sub-Section provides t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect would not be similar to the other project. Therefore, no set procedure or mathematical methodology can be framed for determining the benefit of additional ITC which has to be passed on to the buyers of the units. Moreover, this Authority under Rule 126 has been empowered to determine Methodology Procedure and not to prescribe it. Similarly, the facts of the cases relating to the sectors of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), restaurant service, construction service and cinema service are completely different from each other and therefore, the mathematical methodology adopted in the case of one sector cannot be applied to the other sector. Moreover, both the above benefits are being given by the Central as well as the State Governments as a special concession out of their tax revenue in the public interest and hence the suppliers are not required to pay even a single penny from their own pocket and therefore, they are bound to pass on the above benefits as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) which are abundantly clear, unambiguous, mandatory and legally enforceable. The above provisions also reflect that the true intent behind the above provisions, made by the Central and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent should have increased his prices before 01.01.2019, however, it cannot be accepted that his costs had increased exactly on the intervening night of 31.12.2018/ 01.01.2019 when the rate reduction had happened which had forced him to increase his prices exactly equal to the reduction in the rate of such tax. Such an uncanny coincidence is unheard off and hence there is no doubt that the Respondent has increased his prices for appropriating the benefit of tax reduction to deny the above benefit to the customers. 28. The Respondent has also contended that during the month of December, the sales prices of the products were generally lowest as December was a festive season month. The DGAP has considered the average sale prices of the products during the month of December, 2018 for comparison with the actual sales prices during the period from 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 which has resulted in excess profit which has been considered profiteering. In this context, it would be pertinent to mention that one or the other festive season or festival is always going on in the country throughout the year and the month of December has no specific relevance in this regard. Therefore, it ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es resulting in loss or nominal profits. As per the books of accounts the total profit earned from the sale of the digital cameras was equivalent to the alleged profiteering amount of ₹ 1,41,38,205/- which established that there was no profiteering. In this respect it would be appropriate to mention that the Respondent has not produced invoices or other evidence during the course of the present proceedings to establish that he has sold the cameras on the prices which were lower than their purchase cost. Earning of less profit or no profit also has no correlation with the profiteered amount. The profit earned depends upon the costs of the Respondent which can always be inflated by him whereas the profiteered amount pertains to the amount of tax reduction which has not been passed on by the Respondent. Further, the loss making concerns are also legally bound to pass on the benefit of tax reduction and they cannot appropriate the same against their losses. Therefore, the above claim of the Respondent is not tenable. 31. The Respondent has also averred that the rate of GST on the Power Bank was always intended to be charged @ 18% and not @ 28% as was evident from the Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces of the products sold during the month of December, 2018 the DGAP has completely ignored business factors impacting the sale prices of the impacted products and the discount schemes run by the Respondent. Thus, profiteering to the extent of ₹ 85,92,356/- should be reduced from the proposed profiteered amount of ₹ 1,91,441/-. The above contention of the Respondent is not correct because the investigation carried out by the DGAP reveals that the profiteering has been computed on the transaction value of the products as per the provisions of Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, all the discounts which do not form part of such value have not been included in the computation of the pre rate reduction average base prices of the products. Therefore, there has been no impact of the business factors or the discount schemes on the calculation of the pre rate reduction average base prices of the products sold by the Respondent. The Respondent has also not produced any evidence to show that due to the business factors or discount schemes the prices charged by him in December, 2018 were lower than the prices charged by him during the month of November, 2018. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent has also contended that while calculating the profiteering, the DGAP has not considered the Sale Returns transactions i.e. credit notes issued by the Respondent towards the sales transactions which were retuned by the recipients for the period from January 2019 to June 2019. If the sales return transactions were considered, the profiteered amount would be reduced by ₹ 28,75,832/-. He has also submitted details of the sale returns as per Annexure-A attached to his submissions dated 23.06.2020. In this connection, it would be pertinent to mention that the DGAP vide his supplementary report dated 27.02.2020 has stated that the details of sale returns were submitted by the Respondent during the course of the investigation and the same have duly been considered by him in his Report dated 23.12.2019. Accordingly, the sale returns data was excluded from the profiteering sheet and the same could be verified from the excel sheet of profiteered amount annexed with the DGAP s above Report. Upon perusal of the excel sheet submitted by the DGAP, vide which profiteered amount has been computed as per Annexure-21 of his Report dated 23.12.2019, it is clear that the DGAP has m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence during the course of the present proceedings which can establish the exorbitant moving cost prices claimed by the Respondent. The screen shots of the SAP system can also not be accepted as the conclusive proof of the cost movement as the Respondent is free to make any entries in the above system as per his convenience. It will also be pertinent to mention here that the pre rate reduction base prices included all the costs which the Respondent had borne while selling these products and hence, the Respondent cannot invent additional costs to be taken in to account while computing the profiteered amount. There is also no evidence on record to show that the sales made by the Respondent were on discount as all the sales mentioned in Annexure-Il were normal sales as has been admitted by the Respondent himself vide Annexure-B. Therefore, the above claim of the Respondent is unreasonable, unsubstantiated and far-fetched which cannot be accepted, hence an amount of ₹ 13,13,441/- cannot be reduced from the profiteered amount on this ground. 37. The Respondent has also claimed that he had sold some of the products mentioned in Annexure-III, on discounted comparable sale prices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to reduce his prices commensurately, as indicated in the above mentioned Annexure, in terms of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the above Rules. The Respondent is also directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 1,91,21,441/- in two equal parts each in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the Consumer Welfare Funds of the States/UTs mentioned supra as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c) of the above Rules, since the recipients are not identifiable. The above amounts shall be deposited along with 18% interest payable from the dates from which the above amount was realized by the Respondent from his recipients till the date of deposit in the Consumer Welfare Funds. The above amount of ₹ 1,91,21,441/-, along with applicable interest thereon, shall be deposited within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order failing which it shall be recovered by the concerned CGST/SGST Commissioners as per the provisions of the CGST/SGST Acts. 39. This Authority as per Rule 136 of the CGST Rules 2017 directs the concerned Commissioners of CGST/SGST to monitor this order under the supervision of the DGAP by ensuring that the amount profiteered by the Respondent as ordered by the Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
