9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that despite reduction in the rate of GST from 16% to 5% w.e.f 15.11.2017, the Respondent had not passed on the commensurate benefit of tax reduction as he had increased the base prices of his products. A summary sheet of the extent of profiteering was prepared by the State Tax Officer, Mumbai which was also enclosed with the recommendation of the Standing Committee. On receipt of the said reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, a notice under Rule 129 (3) was issued on 10.07.2017 by the DGAP, calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of reduction in GST rate w.e.f, 15.11.2017, had not been passed on to his recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices and if so, to suo-moto determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply to the notice as well as furnish all the supporting documents. The Respondent was also allowed to inspect the replied upon non-confidential evidence/information which formed the basis of the investigation between 17.07.2019 and 19.07.2019, which was however not availed of by the Respondent. 2. The DGAP has reported that the period covered by the current investigation was from 15.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t emerged that the main issues for determination were whether the rate of GST on the service supplied by the Respondent was reduced from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15-11.2017 and if so, whether the benefit of such reduction in the rate of GST had been passed on by the Respondent to his recipients, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 7. The DGAP has further stated that the GST rate on the restaurant service has been reduced from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 along with the condition that no ITC on the goods and services used in supplying the service would be available to the Respondent, vide Notification No. 46/2017-CentraI Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017. Since it was a case of reduction in the rate of tax, it was important to examine the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST 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 or commensurate reduction in prices. "Thus, the legal requirement of the above provision was abundantly clear that in the event of the benefit of ITC or reduction in the rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of inputs/input services and capital goods as on 14.11.2017. by the Respondent, which was required under the provisions of Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 42 and 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017. 10. The DGAP in his Report has also intimated that the ratio of ITC to the Net Taxable Turnover has been taken as the basis for determining the impact of denial of ITC that was available till 31.10.2017. The DGAP has found that the ITC amounting to Rs. 3,58,05/-was available during the period from July 2017 to October 2017 which worked out to be 9.19% of Net Taxable Turnover of the Respondent from the restaurant service supplies amounting to Rs. 38,98,737/- during the same period, Further, with effect from 15.11.2017, the rate of tax on restaurant service was reduced from 18% to 5% and no ITC was available to the Respondent, A summary of the computation of the ratio of ITC to the taxable turnover as furnished by the DGAP is given in Table-A below:- Table-A (Amount in Rs.) Particulars Jul.-17 Aug.-17 Sept.- 2017 Oct.-2017 Total ITC Availed as per GSTR-3B A 85539 78228 100185 94353 358305 Total Outward Taxable turnover as per GSTR-3B (B) 971773 911712 954 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of denial of ITC; and the details of outward supplies (other than zero-rated, nil rated and exempted supplies) during the period from 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019, the amount of net higher sales realization due to increase in the base prices of the service supplied after netting off the impact of denial of ITC or in other words, the profiteered amount worked out to be Rs. 41,93,431/- including the GST on the base profiteered amount for the period of investigation, which was detailed in Annexure-14 of his Report. It was also stated that the service has been supplied by the Respondent in the State of Maharashtra only. 14. The DGAP has also claimed that the allegation of profiteering by way of either increasing the base prices of the products while maintaining the same selling prices or by way of not reducing the selling prices of the products commensurately, despite the reduction in the rate of GST from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 stood confirmed against the Respondent and the extent of profiteering was Rs. 41,93,431/- (inclusive of GST). Thus, the provisions of Section 171 (I) of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondent in the present case. 15. The above Report of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; INR-22.76 INR 252.45 Case 2:- Suppose if same discount was offered on 16.11.2017 instead of 03.11.2017 SL Product Name Total Qty. Total sales Realization Average sales Loss of ITC @9.91% Total Commensurate Price 1 Aloo Patty sub (12") 48 INR 11760 INR- 245 INR-24.28 INR 269.28 Impact sheet due to inclusion of discounted sales Average price if discount offered on 3rd Nov 2017-(A) Average price if discount offered on 16th Nov 2017-(B) Difference = (A-B) Total Qty. Total impact INR =252.45 INR 269.28 INR 16.83 1597 Nos. INR 26877.51 b. That as per the above calculations. there was a difference of Rs. 26,877.51/- in the profiteered amount due to inclusion of discounted sales while calculating the average price on a single product. c. That it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.11.2017 till June, 2019 for 20 months and all the price revisions made after 15.11.2017 have been considered as part of the profiteered amount He has completely ignored that the Respondent has right to increase his prices on account of various reasons other than tax which were also required to be considered for fixing the product prices. f. That the alleged profiteered amount has substantiality increased as compared to the total turnover during the period from February 2019 to June 2019 because in the month of February 2019, there was revision in the product prices to meet out the general inflation and other expenses. Before February 2019, the profiteered percentage was 11.51% of the turnover, however, in the months starting from February 2019 to June 2019, the profiteered percentage was 14.70% of the turnover i.e. there was almost increase of 3% as compared to the other periods. He has also submitted month wise comparison Chat as under:- Month wise comparison chart Profiteering Analysis month-wise Month Total Profiteering Amount Total Amount % of profiteering amount versus total turnover Month Total Profiteering Amount Total Turnover % of profiteering amount versu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act that fixation of prices was fundamental right of the business and there were no rules/regulations prescribed under the law for increasing the product prices after the rate reduction. i. 5% additional GST amount added on profiteered amount should be removed:- The GST of 5% which has been paid to the Government was based on the base price charged to the customers. Since, according to the DGAP the base price should have been reduced accordingly, the GST amount payable should also be less than as compared to the actual GST amount collected from the customers. However, the GST amount collected on the increased base price from the customers has been already deposited with the Government of India along with monthly tax liability Therefore, the addition of 5% GST amount was required to be removed and the profiteered amount should be recovered from the Governments. The profiteered amount should also be reduced by Rs. 1,99,687/- Month -wise summary of the same has been furnished by the Respondent in the below mentioned Table:- Impact due to inclusion of GST Amount (Amount in Rs.) Month Profiteering Amount as per DGAP Report - (A) GST Amount included in profiteering amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k. That the DGAP while calculating the profiteering amount, has considered the base prices of the products without considering the increase in the royalty expenses which was directly calculated on the basis of net sales. This did not come under the purview of ITC loss. Due to this increase in royalty expenses, impact on profiteered amount was Rs. 4,09,897/- and it should be reduced while calculating the profiteered amount. l. The Respondent has also relied upon the decision of this Authority given in the case of Kumar Gandhrav v. M/s KRBL Limited (Case Number 03/2018 dated 04.05.2018) = 2018 (5) TMI 760 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY wherein increase in the purchase price/cost of goods has been accepted by this Authority while determining the profiteered amount. He has also reproduced relevant Para 7 of the above said Order as under:- "It is also revealed from the perusal of the tax Invoices submitted by the Respondent that there was an increase in the purchase price of paddy in the year 2017 as compared to its price during the year 2016 which constitutes major part of the cost of the above product..................... Therefore, due to the imposition of the GST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Rs. 3,06,505/- ITC of Rs. 3.06,505/- has not been considered while calculating loss of ITC because at that time he was not selling through the online platforms. Therefore, delivery fee inclusive of GST needed to be considered while calculating the profiteering amount. The Respondent has furnished month wise details of online sales & services fee in the below mentioned Table :- Details of online sales and delivery expenses with GST Amount Month Total Sales Swiggy Sales Uber Sales Total Online Sales Service fee GST@18% on service fee Jan 18 1,415,219.00 346,610.00 346,610.00 43,326.25 7,798.73 Feb 18 1,413,259.00 441,635.00 441,635.00 55,204.38 9,936.79 Mar 18 1,620,084.00 506,755.00 506,755.00 63,344.38 11,401.99 Apr 18 1,612,909.00 521,730.00 521,730.00 65,216.25 11,738.93 May 18 1,661,807.00 574,513.00 574,513.00 71,814.13 12,926.54 Jun 18 1,603,735.00 557,088.00 557,088.00 69,636.00 12,534.48 July 18 1,720,319.00 652,157.00 652,157.00 81,519.63 14,673.53 Aug 18 1,677,538.00 663,301.00 663,301.00 82,912.63 14,924.27 Sep 18 1,742,899.00 728,839.90 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced by him and considered the impact on the profiteered amount as zero instead of negative value. However, the column named "Difference in Value %" in the DGAP working file (File name "Total" in annexure 14 of DGAP report) clearly showed the negative % for the impacted line items. Total amount of these impacted negative line items was Rs. 2,28,863/- which has been incurred by the Respondent on account of reduction in prices of the products after rate reduction which has not been considered by the DGAP while calculating profiteered amount and therefore, the profiteered amount should be reduced further by Rs. 2,28,863/-. The Respondent has furnished the details of the items in respect of which the base prices have been reduced post 14th November, 2017 in the Table given below:- Impact on Profiteering amount due to reduction in prices (Amount in Rs.) Month Total Profiteering amount as per DGAP Total Profiteering amount as per calculation Difference Month Total Profiteering Amount as per our DGAP Total Profiteering Amount as per our calculation Difference Total Impact Nov 17 0.00 (433.05) 433.05 Sept 18 0.00 (9,175.35) 9175.35 9608.40 Dec 17 0.00 (2,650.00) 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ite Sub 13,720.00 13,774.00 12. Chkn Tikka Sub 7,790.00 25 Veggie Patty Sub 3,520.00 11,310.00 13. Cookie 160.00 26 Veg Shammi Sub 24,480.00 24,640.00 168,174.00 126,575.00 294,749.00 p. That he was also providing similar whole order discounts and BOGO (Buy one get one free) offers. q. MRP based product where denial of ITC is much higher in comparison with average ITC:- That he was selling few MRP based products like soft drinks and the GST rate applicable on some of these products was 28% plus 12% Cess. After 14.11.2017. the cost of goods sold had increased because ITC on 28% GST and 12% Cess was not available to him which had been charged by the vendors at the time of purchase. Therefore, the MRP based products where tax incidence had increased due to denial to ITC needed to be removed from the profiteered amount. r. Calculation of profiteered amount should be up to March 31st 2018:- That Section 171 of the CGST Act as well as Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the General Methodology and Procedure prescribed by this Authority has not prescribed any time frame for considering whether the Respondent has passed on the "co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r calculating profiteering amount, These included WP (C) 378 of 2019 (Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Union of India) = 2019 (5) TMI 562 - DELHI HIGH COURT, WP (C) 2347 of 2019 (Jubilant Food works Ltd. Union of India) = 2019 (5) TMI 568 - DELHI HIGH COURT and WP (C) 4213/2019 (Abbott Healthcare V. Union of India) = 2019 (5) TMI 563 - DELHI HIGH COURT. Hence. the proceeding should be stayed till the time the issue of constitutional validity and computation methodology was settled by the courts. 17. Supplementary Report was sought from the DGAP on the various submissions made by the Respondent. In response, the DGAP has furnished the following reply:- a. Para I;- That the Respondent has not specifically mentioned the discount (50%) in sales data/information provided during the investigation for the period from 01.11.2017 to 14.11.2017 which was required under Section 15 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Respondent had simply declared the reduced rate (discounted) as taxable value in the sales data submitted by him during the investigation. Moreover. this fact was not mentioned by the Respondent in his written submissions made before the DGAP. Therefore, the discounted prices on a specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. c. Para 3:- That the price included both the base price and the tax charged on it Therefore, any excess amount collected from the recipients, even in the form of tax, must be returned to the recipients. In caser the recipients were not identifiable, the said amount was required to be deposited in the CWF. By increasing the base price, the Respondent has forced his customers/recipients to pay extra tax which they were not liable to pay. Therefore, it was clear that the amount of extra tax (GST) on the increased base prices was an amount paid by the customers/recipients which they were not supposed to pay. If any supplier has charged more tax from the recipients, the aforesaid statutory provisions would require that such amount be refunded to the eligible recipients or alternatively deposited in the CWF. regardless of whether such extra tax collected from the recipient has be deposited in the Government account or not Besides, any extra tax returned to the recipients by the supplier by issuing credit notes could be declared in the Returns filed by such supplier and his tax liability would stand adjusted to that ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There could be many marketing strategies or other promotional schemes which might compel the Respondent to reduce the price of products more than the actual requirement. The Respondent was always at liberty to reduce the prices of his products up to any extent and bear the loss but this loss could not be appropriated with the due benefit of rate reduction available to the recipients or customers of the other products where the prices were not reduced commensurately by the Respondent Hence, profiteering under the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 was to be quantified on the products where prices were not reduced commensurately. g. Para 7:- That under the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 129 of the CGST Rules. 2017, the legal requirement was abundantly clear that in the event of a benefit of ITC or reduction in rate of tax, there must be a commensurate reduction in prices of the goods or services. Such reduction could obviously be in terms of money only, so that the final price payable by a consumer got reduced. Thus, under the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, every recipient of goods or services was entitled to get his/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.2019. Therefore, it was very clear that the Standing Committee did not consider the written complaint with the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules. The Standing Committee could not start investigation under Rule 129 of CGST Rules beyond the period of limitation, In the present case, the limitation for the Standing Committee to examine the online written complaint had expired on 20.04.2019. Hence the investigation of the issue by the Standing Committee was beyond the Statutory period of limitation as prescribed under Rule 128 (1) of CGST Rules. 19. We have carefully considered the all the Reports furnished by the DGAP, the submissions made by the Respondent and the other material placed on record. On examining the various submissions we find that the following issues need to be addressed:- a. Whether the Respondent has passed on the commensurate benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to his customers? b Whether there was any violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 committed by the Respondent? 20. It is revealed from the record that the Respondent is running a restaurant as franchisee of M/s. Subway India Private L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been taken for determining the impact of denial of ITC which was available to the Respondent till 31.10.2017. As per the record ITC amounting to Rs. 3,58,305/- was available to the Respondent during the period from July, 2017 to October, 2017 which was approximately 9.19% of the net taxable turnover of the restaurant service amounting to Rs. 38,98,737/- supplied during the same period. as has been shown in Table- A supra, with effect from 15.11,2017, when the GST rate on restaurant service was reduced from 18% to 5%, the said ITC was not available to the Respondent. 23. It is further revealed from the analysis of the details of item- wise outward taxable supplies made during the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019 that the Respondent had increased the base prices of 152 items supplied as a part of restaurant service to make up for the denial of ITC post GST rate reduction, The pre and post GST rate reduction prices of the items sold during the period from 01.08.2017 to 14.11.2017 (Pre-GST rate reduction) and 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019 (Post-GST rate reduction) have been compared and it has been found that the Respondent has increased the base prices by more than 9.19% i.e. by more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comparable average base prices. On the basis of the average pre rate reduction base prices the commensurate base prices have been computed by adding denial of ITC of 9.19% and compared with the invoice wise actual base prices of the products as is evident from Table-B supra. However, the average pre rate reduction base prices were required to be compared with the actual post rate reduction base prices as the benefit is required to be passed on each product to each customer, In case average to average base prices are compared for both the periods, the customers who have purchased the products on the base prices which were more than the commensurate base prices, 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. 26. The Respondent has vehemently argued that the DGAP while calculating the average pre rate reduction base prices has considered all the sales including the discounted sales which had been made on 03.11.2017 due to which huge difference has come as compared to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount, Therefore, the average base prices have been correctly calculated by the DGAP and all the claims made by the Respondent in this regard are fallacious and cannot be accepted. 27. The Respondent has also contended that the DGAP has considered all the price revisions made after 15.11.2017 as a part of profiteered amount and has ignored the fact that a businessman has right to increase his prices on account of various reasons Other than tax. It is pertinent to mention here that the scope of profiteering, as per Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, is confined to the question of whether the benefit accruing on account of rate reduction has been passed on to the recipients or not. It is apparent from the above facts that the Respondent could have raised his pre rate reduction prices by 9.19% to offset the impact of denial of ITC but it has been found that he had increased them more than the permissible limit. Therefore, the Respondent has failed to pass on the benefit of tax reduction, The Respondent has not produced any evidence during the course of the investigation that the price rise effected by him was commensurate with the tax reduction. He has further claimed to have increa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to pay due to the reduction in the rate of tax but he has also compelled them to pay additional GST on these excess base prices Which they should not have paid. By doing so, the Respondent has defeated the very objective of both the Central as well as the State Government which aimed to provide the benefit of rate reduction to the general public, The Respondent was legally not required to collect the excess GST and therefore, he has not only violated the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 but has also acted in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (I) of the above Act as he has denied the benefit of tax reduction to his customers by charging excess GST. Had he not charged the excess GST the customers would have paid less price while purchasing food items from the Respondent and hence the above amount has rightly been included in the profiteered amount as it denotes the amount of benefit denied by the Respondent. The above amount can also not be recovered from the Government as it is required to be deposited in the CWFs of the Central end the State Government. Therefore, the above amount has been correctly included in the profiteered amount by the DGAP and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has no connection with the base prices as the Respondent has admitted increase of 45% in his sales due to the use of the E-commerce platforms which has resulted in his earning more profit, Had the Respondent not earned profit on these sales there was no reason for him to pay them service fee. There is also no question of including the hypothetical ITC on the GST which would have been available to the Respondent in the post rate reduction period while calculating the pre rate reduction average base prices as the Respondent was not making supplies through the above platforms during the pre rate reduction period, The above claim of the Respondent is frivolous and hence, it cannot be accepted 33. The Respondent has further averred that the DGAP while calculating the profiteered amount has incorrectly applied a methodology similar to the 'zeroing methodology'. In this regard, we observe that no 'netting off can be applied in the cases of profiteering, as the benefit of tax rate reduction has to be passed on to each customer on each product supplied by a registered person. Netting off, as demanded by the Respondent, would imply that the amount of benefit not passed on certain supplies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s has been approved in the above Report of the WTO as it would result in denial of benefit to the customers which would amount to violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act as well as Article 14 of the Constitution. 35. The Respondent has also stated that he has incurred total amount of Rs. 2,94749/- on account of the items where base prices were made zero under various kind of sale promotion schemes such as free items to loyal customers and Buy One Get One (BOGO) offers. In this connection it is mentioned that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 requires passing of the benefit of tax reduction by commensurate reduction in prices only and therefore, the Respondent cannot claim to pass on the benefit through the promotional schemes. The above schemes have been offered by the Respondent to increase his sales in the normal course of his business which do not constitute passing on of the benefit. The Respondent cannot pass on the benefit as per his own convenience as he is legally bound to pass on the above benefit through price reduction only. Hence, the above contention of the Respondent is untenable and therefore, the total amount of Rs, 2,94,749/- claimed to have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is computed for the entire period and hence we do not see any reason to accept this contention Of the Respondent. We further observe that had the Respondent passed on the benefit before 30.06.2019, he would have been investigated only till that date. Therefore, the period of investigation from 1511.2017 to 30.06.2019 has been rightly taken by the DGAP for computation of the profiteered amount, 38. The Respondent has further argued that the CGST Act, 2017 did not prescribe any method of computation by which profiteered amount could be calculated. The above contention Of the Respondent is frivolous as the 'Procedure and Methodology' for passing on the benefits of reduction in the rate of tax and ITC or computation of the profiteered amount has been outlined in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 itself which provides that "Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply or goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices," It is clear from the plain reading of the above provision that it mentions "reduction in the rate of tax or benefit of ITC" which means that if any reduction in the rate of tax is ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the rate of tax from the date of its notification. Computation of commensurate reduction in prices is purely a mathematical exercise which is based upon the above parameters and hence it would vary from SKU to SKU or unit to unit or service to service and hence no fixed mathematical methodology can be prescribed to determine the amount of benefit which a supplier is required to pass on to a buyer Similarly, computation of the profiteered amount is also a mathematical exercise which can be done by any person who has elementary knowledge of accounts and mathematics. However, to further explain the legislative intent behind the above provision, this Authority has been authorised to determine the 'Procedure and Methodology' which has been done by it vide its Notification dated 28.03.2018 under Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017. However. no fixed formula, in respect of all the Sectors or the goods or the services. can be set for passing on the above benefits or for computation of the profiteered amount, as the facts of each case are different. In the case of one real estate project, date of start and completion of the project, price of the flat/shop, mode of payment of price or insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more than 9.19% of the base prices as is evident from Table-B supra. The average base price of the product mentioned in the above Table was Rs. 107.95 which could have been raised to Rs. 117.87 by adding denial of ITC to the extent of 9.19%. After adding GST @ 5% amounting to Rs. 5.89 the Respondent was required to sell it at the commensurate price of Rs. 123.76 w.e.f. 15.11.2017. However, he had sold the above product at Rs. 140/- and hence, he has profiteered to the extent of Rs. 16.24, It is clear from the above that no procedure or elaborate mathematical calculations are required to be prescribed separately for passing on the benefit of tax reduction. The Respondent cannot deny the benefit of tax reduction to his customers on the above ground and enrich himself at the expense of his buyers as Section 171 provides clear cut methodology and procedure to compute the benefit of tax reduction and the profiteered amount, Therefore, the above plea of the Respondent is untenable and hence it cannot be accepted 39. The Respondent has also claimed that the pricing of products depended on several commercial factors which were required to be taken in to account while computing the profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Union of India), WP (C) 2347 of 2019 (Jubilant Food works Ltd. v. Union of India) and WP (C) 4213/2019 (Abbott Healthcare v. Union of India) in which the constitutional validity and computation methodology has been challenged and hence, the present proceedings should be kept pending till the above issues are settled. In this context, it would be relevant to mention that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has not directed this Authority to stop the proceedings in respect of the present case. Therefore, the present proceedings cannot be kept pending as they are to be completed within the prescribed period. Therefore, the above contention raised by the Respondent is not maintainable. 42. Based on the above facts the profiteered amount is determined as Rs. 41.93,431/- as has been computed in Annexure-14 of the DGAP's Report dated 27.12.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately in terms of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the above Rules. Further, since the recipients of the benefit, as determined, are not identifiable, the Respondent is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 41.93,431/- in two equal parts of Rs. 20,96,715.50/- each in the Central Consume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
