9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not detract from the statutory obligation which Section 171 of the CGST Act places upon the writ petitioner. Once it was conceded that during the period in question, the CGST rate had come to be reduced from 28% to 18%, it became mandatory for the petitioner to pass on the benefit of that reduction. There are no justification to interfere with the view expressed by the CCI in this regard. There are no ground to interfere with the order impugned - petition dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA For the Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus For the Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr. Subhm Kumar, Mr. Dipak Raj Mr. Vipul Kumar, Advs. ORDER CM APPL. 58815/202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Charged (in Rs.) A B C D E= [C/ 128%] F G H I J=(I*118%) 1 Premium Seats 175 28 136.72 175 18 148.31 136.72 161.32 2 Regular Seats 150 28 117.19 150 18 127.12 117.19 138.28 3. The period covered by the aforementioned investigation was from 01 January 2019 to 30 June 2019. The writ petitioner appears to have asserted that the prices that it had charged was in accord with and within the limits as prescribed and stipulated by the District Collector, who is designated as the competent Licensing Authority under Section 4 of the Telangana Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 [1955 Act]. According to the writ petitioner, since the price as charged was within the ceiling prescribed under the 1955 Act, the charge of profiteering would not sustain. 4. Whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent had a base price (exclusive of taxes) of Rs. 136.72/- and Rs. 117.19/- for the Premium and Regular class tickets respectively before the GST rate reduction on 01.01.2019 which was raised to Rs. 148.31/- and Rs. 127.12/- respectively. 11. The Respondent further contended that the licensing authority under the Telangana Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955 had been regulating the ticket prices through Government Orders. The last GO Ms.100 dated 26.04.2013 was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in in the case of Ramakrishna Gliterrati vs. State of Telangana, wherein the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 31.10.2016 allowed theatre owners to charge a higher price on cinema tickets after informing the concerned auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers. Instead, he increased the base prices of tickets thereby wrongly appropriating the benefit of rate reduction. Therefore, the above contention of the Respondent cannot be accepted. 5. In our considered opinion, the view as expressed by the CCI is clearly unexceptionable since a broad and maximum limit with respect to movie admission tickets that may have been formulated by a licensing authority would not detract from the statutory obligation which Section 171 of the CGST Act places upon the writ petitioner. Once it was conceded that during the period in question, the CGST rate had come to be reduced from 28% to 18%, it became mandatory for the petitioner to pass on the benefit of that reduction. We consequently find no justification to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
