NAA dismisses Profiteering Charges against Bharati Telemedia [Read Order]

The National Anti Profiteering Authority ( NAA ) has dismissed profiteering charges against Bharati Telemedia Private Limited for not passing on GST rate cut benefits to its consumers.

The complainant filed an application before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, by the Applicant No. 1, against the DTH industry in general stating that the tax incidence on DTH services prior to GST implementation was subjected to Entertainment Tax which ranged between 10% to 25% in various States, in addition to 15% Service Tax, whereas on introduction of GST, the tax rate came down to 18%. However, Applicant No. 1 stated that the benefit of this reduction in the rate of tax was not passed on to the consumers by the DTH operators when the GST was introduced w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Thus, it was alleged that the Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.

The NAA said that, the Entertainment Tax was neither allowed as ITC in pre-GST era nor has been allowed in the GST era, and that the cost of the entertainment tax was borne by the Respondent himself as is clear from the invoices produced by him. Accordingly, there is no ground to believe the contention of the above Applicant as no benefit of ITC has accrued to the Respondent which was required to be passed on.

The NAA also observed that “It is also apparent that the plans and packages post-GST had been changed and thus. there were no comparable prices for the old packages with that of the new ones and the prices of the packages charged by the Respondent in the pre GST era from all his customers across the country were the same and were inclusive of only Service Tax@ 15% (14% service tax + 0,5% SBC 0.5% KKC)T and hence the allegation made by the above Applicant is not established, that he had charged more price post implementation of GST”.

“In view of the above facts, it is evident that there is no evidence to prove that the Respondent had charged more price in the GST era and not passed on the benefit of tax reduction, as the tax rate had increased from 15% to 18%. Further, the above Applicant had also not availed the opportunities of hearings to establish his case. Therefore, the Authority is of the view that the DAP has rightly submitted that the allegation of profiteering is not established in the present case”, the bench also added.