1. The brief facts of the present case are that an application through e-mail dated 26.11.2017 (Annexure-I) was filed by the Applicant No. 1 before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules (CGST), 2017 requesting that his identity should not be disclosed. The above Applicant through his application had complained that although the Goods & Service Tax (GST) had been reduced from 28% to 18% on a large number of products w.e.f. 15.11.2017, the Respondent had not reduced the Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) of the products which were being sold by him. The Applicant No. 1 had also alleged that the Respondent had increased the base prices of his products, so that the MRPs continued to be the same even after reduction in the rates of GST. He had also enclosed a copy of the letter dated 21.11.2017 written by the Respondent to his Redistribution Stockists (RSs) stating that he will be recovering the excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the stocks of his brands lying with them as on 15.12.2017 and the benefit of tax reduction shall be passed on to the end consumers through reduction in the MRPs or through fill level increases. He had further informed vide his e-mail dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure-3) that the Respondent had started the process of recovery. Another application against the Respondent vide e-mail dated 17.11 .2017 (Annexure-4) was filed before the Standing Committee by the Applicant No. 2 stating that the Respondent had increased the basic rates of his products after the rate of GST was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017. Both these applications were examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering in it’s meetings held on 29.11.2017 and 24.01.2018 respectively, wherein it was decided to refer the matter to the Applicant No. 4 (here-in-after referred to as the DGAP) to investigate both the above applications to determine whether the benefit of reduction in the GST rates had been passed on by the Respondent to the customers or not. Meanwhile another application dated 20.09.2018 was received from the Applicant No. 3 by this Authority stating that the benefit of GST rate reduction had not been passed on by the Respondent and there was no evidence to show that the amount profiteered by him had been deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF). Since the issue raised by the above Applicant had been investigated and a Report had already been filed by the DGAP on 15.06.2018 this application was not forwarded to the Standing Committee.

Please read full judgement in PDF attached.