Held that—On the issue of reduction in the tax rates, it is clear from the DGAP’s investigation report that there was no reduction in the tax rate in this case hence, the allegation of profiteering by the Respondent on account of change in tax rate is not sustainable.
The record also reveals that the base price charged by the Respondent in the post-GST sale invoice dated 14.10.2017 was Rs. 1,73,346/- less than the base price in the pre-GST sale invoice dated 28.04.2017 due to the reason that in the pre-GST period, the credit of Excise Duty, NCCD and Cesses etc. was not available to the Respondent as only credit of VAT was admissible while in the post-GST period, the Respondent was entitled to claim the ITC on the entire GST paid @ 45% and when the post-GST purchase invoice dated 29.09.2017 and sale invoice dated 14.10.2017 issued by the Respondent were compared, it was evident that the Respondent had not passed on the burden of the input GST paid @ 45% amounting to Rs. 2,88,661.95/- to the Applicant due to the reason that he was eligible to claim ITC on this amount. It is also clear that there was increase in the ITC which the Respondent could avail in the post-GST era as compared to the pre-GST era and the pre-GST and post-GST sale invoices issued by the Respondent revealed that the base price charged from the above Applicant had been reduced as the benefit of ITC was passed on by the Respondent to the Applicant No. 1. Therefore, the allegation that the above Applicant had not been given the benefit of ITC by the Respondent was not proved.

Accordingly, the application filed by the Applicant No.1 requesting for action against the Respondent for violation of the provisions of the Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is not maintainable and hence the same is dismissed.Shri Shylesh Damodaran, Director General Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. M/S. Landmark Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. — [2018] 7 TAXLOK.COM 027 (NAPA)