High court issued notice in respect of calculation of profiteered amount.
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti-Profiteering -- The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) has compared the average price of various products sold by the petitioner with the selling price, in a particular area, and then gone on to calculate the profiteered amount. The DGAP has not made requisite adjustment in those instances where the selling price was found to be lower than the average base price. Had the adjustment been made, then, the petitioner would have been able demonstrate that it had transferred benefit amounting to approximately Rs. 61 crores to its consumers. The respondent counsel submitted that the kind of adjustment, alluded to on behalf of the petitioner, is not contemplated under the provisions of Section 171.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court issued notice and listed the matter on 29.04.2021. Further directed that status quo, as obtaining today, should be maintained for the reason that a coordinate Bench, vide order dated 18.02.2020, has taken a similar view, albeit, at the interim stage.
High court issued notice in respect of calculation of profiteered amount.
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti-Profiteering -- The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) has compared the average price of various products sold by the petitioner with the selling price, in a particular area, and then gone on to calculate the profiteered amount. The DGAP has not made requisite adjustment in those instances where the selling price was found to be lower than the average base price. Had the adjustment been made, then, the petitioner would have been able demonstrate that it had transferred benefit amounting to approximately Rs. 61 crores to its consumers. The respondent counsel submitted that the kind of adjustment, alluded to on behalf of the petitioner, is not contemplated under the provisions of Section 171.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court issued notice and listed the matter on 29.04.2021. Further directed that status quo, as obtaining today, should be maintained for the reason that a coordinate Bench, vide order dated 18.02.2020, has taken a similar view, albeit, at the interim stage.