TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the products sold by them for the period from 1-4-2018 to 31-12-2018, and, this Authority vide Order No. 26/2022 dated 23-6-2022, has also confirmed profiteering to the tune of Rs. 186,39,57,058/- against M/s. L Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. for the period from 15-11-2017 to 31-12-2018. This Authority is of the opinion that the amount of profiteering calculated against the Respondent might have been already calculated and confirmed against M/s. L Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. as the period of investigation in the present case is already covered in the period of investigation in case of M/s. L Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. and the products on which profiteering has been calculated in the present case, have been included in the case of M/s. L Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. - considering the above facts on record and to avoid the duplication and doubling of confirming of profiteered amount, this Authority directs the DGAP to re-investigate/re-examine the matter and make sure whether the amount of profiteering calculated in the present case has already been considered in the case of M/s. L Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. or not, under rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Application dispos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowed by the reminders dated 19-8-2020, 3-9-2020, 28-9-2020, 30-9-2020, 27-10-2020 and 16-12-2020 were issued to Respondent seeking requisite documents/details for further investigation. e. In para-17 of the aforesaid Order, DGAP was directed by Authority to further investigate the quantum of profiteering which the Respondent had made thereafter and submitted his report accordingly. Hence, for the compliance of the same, letter dated 7-1-2019 was issued to M/s. Raj Company to submitted details. f. The period covered by the current investigation was from 1-4-2018 to 31-12-2018. g. The Respondent submitted his replies to the said Notice, vide letters and e-mails dated 14-1-2019, 5-4-2019, 28-8-2020, 21-9-2020, 25-9-2020, 10-10-2020, 16-10-2020, 5-11-2020, 20-11-2020, 21-12-2020, 23-12-2020, 29-12-2020 1-1-2021. h. Vide the aforementioned e-mails/letters, the Respondent submitted the following documents/information: i. Details of invoice-wise outward taxable supplies from 1-4-2018 to 31-12-2018 for all products impacted by GST rate reduction w.e.f. 15-11-2017. ii. Copies of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the period from April 2018 to December 2018. iii. Samp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x (Rate), dated 14-11-2017- 3 Total quantity of item sold C 35 4 Total Taxable Value D 6260.85 5 Average base price (Without GST) E=D/C 178.88 6 GST Rate F 28% 18% 7 Average selling price (pre rate reduction with GST) G=E*1.28 228.97 8 Commensurate Selling price (post Rate reduction-with GST) G=E*1.18 228.97 211.08 9 Invoice No. I LCBL039761807494 10 Invoice Date J 24-12-2018 11 Total Billed quantity (above invoice) K 4 12 Transaction Value in the invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in prices , had been contravened in the present case. 3. Since, the quorum of the Authority of minimum three Members, as provided under rule 134 was not available till 23-2-2022, the matter was not decided. With the joining of two new Technical Members in February 2022, the quorum of the Authority was restored from 23-2-2022, and the Respondent was granted personal hearing on 15-6-2022. However, the Respondent neither appeared for the hearing nor did he file his written submissions. It was noted that the Respondent is distributor of the M/s. L Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. and the Authority has recently passed an Order against them. 4. We have carefully considered the Report furnished by the DGAP, the clarifications filed by him and the records of the case. There is no dispute with regard to the reduction of the tax in respect of subject products supplied by the Respondent with effect from 15-11-2017. The Government by Notification No. 41/2017-CT (Rate), dated 14-11-2017 has reduced rates on subject products. In view of the above said facts and the records, the Authority has observed that the Respondent, M/s. Raj Company was a distributor of M/s. L Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. The Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
