9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have profiteered in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017. It is pertinent that the above Order was passed in pursuance of an earlier complaint filed by Principal Commissioner, Central Tax Central Excise Hyderabad, GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004 and the resultant investigation Report of the DGAP dated 25.10.2019 which covered the period from 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019. The Respondent had therefore been directed to reduce the prices of his tickets as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, keeping in view the reduction in the rate of tax so that the benefit was passed on to the recipients. Further, the Respondent had been directed to deposit the profiteered amount of ₹ 30,13,058/- along with the interest to be calculated @ 18% from the date when the above amount was collected by him from the recipients till the above amount was deposited, Since the recipients, in this case, were not identifiable, the Respondent had been directed to deposit the amount of profiteering of ₹ 15,06,529/-(along with interest thereon at the applicable rate) in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) and ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of admission ticket is above one hundred rupees despite a reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019. Applicant No. 1 has alleged that the Respondent increased the base price of his movie tickets and thus maintained unchanged total (cum tax) prices of the movie tickets, charged by him from his customers/ recipients, and had thus not passed on to his customers/ recipients. the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% effected vide Notification No. 27/2018 Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2018. In support of his claim, Applicant No. 1 had submitted a copy of a movie ticket dated 04.01.2019 along with his application. 2. The DGAP has further reported that the Respondent had already been investigated, in respect of the same cinema hall, for profiteering based on another Application dated 28.01.2019, which had been filed by the Principal Commissioner, Hyderabad CGST Commissionerate, wherein it had been alleged that the Respondent had profiteered by not passing on the benefit of the reduction in the rate of tax to his customers/ recipients. DGAP has further reported that based on the investigation carried out by him for the period from 01.01.2019 to 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D=(B*C) 32.82/- 22.88/- 5. Actual Selling Price (Post Rate Reduction) (including GST) E=B+D 150/- 150/- 6. Commensurate Selling Price (Post Rate Reduction) (including GST) F=118% of B(Pre) 138.27/- 7. No. of tickets purchased by the Applicant G 1 8. The excess amount charged (or Profiteering) H=(E-F)*G 11.73/- 5. The DGAP has thus concluded that the Respondent has realized an excess amount of ₹ 11.73/- from Applicant No. 1 (inclusive of GST) and that this amount stood included in the profiteering of ₹ 30,13,058/- by the Respondent as computed in DGAP s previous Report F. No. 22011/NAA/96/PMC/2019 dated 25.10.2019. The DGAP has also submitted that in these proceedings, any reference to the CGST Act, 2017 and CGST Rules, 2017 includes a reference to the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent to the DGAP seeking clarification thereon under Rule 133 (2A) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The DGAP, vide his clarification furnished under Rule 133 (2A) of the CGST Rules 2017, reported that aggrieved with the Authority s order No. 37/2020 dated 07.07.2020 = 2020 (7) TMI 286 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY , the Respondent had filed a W rit Petition (Civil) No. 7736/2020 = 2020 (10) TMI 573 - DELHI HIGH COURT before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The Hon ble High Court vide order dated 08.10.2020 directed the Respondent to deposit the principal profiteered amount i.e. ₹ 25,53,454/- (₹ 30,13,058/- minus ₹ 4,59,604/-) in six equated installments commencing 02 nd November, 2020. The interest amount directed to be paid by the Respondents as well as penalty proceedings are stayed till further orders . 9. Further, the Respondent, vide his subsequent submission dated 29.10.2020, reiterated his previous submissions dated 08.10.2020 and submitted that he was depositing the profiteered amount as directed by the Hon ble High Court in its interim order dated 08.10.2020. After considering the above submissions of the Respondent, hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the Respondent also covers the same issue and the same period as the previous case and that the Respondent had realized an additional amount of ₹ 11.73/- from Applicant No. 1 (inclusive of GST). It is also clear to us that this amount of ₹ 11.73/- stands already included in the total profiteering amount of ₹ 30,13,058/- determined against the Respondent vide its Order No. 37/2020 dated 07.07.2020 = 2020 (7) TMI 286 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY which had been ordered to be deposited in the CWFs because, at that time, no recipient could be identified for receiving the benefit. However, now that the entitlement of Applicant No.1 has been established, we hold that Applicant No. 1 is entitled to be passed on an amount of ₹ 11.73/- along with interest as applicable thereon. 12. Further, we take note of the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the matter arising out of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7736/2020 = 2020 (10) TMI 573 - DELHI HIGH COURT , filed by the Respondent against Order No. 37/2020 dated 07.07.2020 = 2020 (7) TMI 286 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY of this Authority, and observe that the Hon ble Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
