Wai Wai Noodles Maker Found Guilty Of Profiteering ₹90.9 Lakh By Holding GST Rate Cut Benefit from Customers: GSTAT [Read Order]
The Tribunal ordered that a compliance report on the deposit of the profiteered amount must be filed with the DGAP and the concerned GST Commissioners within four months.
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Delhi, has upheld findings of profiteering against instant noodle manufacturer C.G. Foods, that profiteered ₹90.9 lakh between November 15, 2017 and December 31, 201,8 by increasing base prices despite the tax cut.
The Tribunal, by its order dated 03 February 2026, accepted the DGAP’s report that the respondent failed to pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction from 18% to 12% on instant noodles (HSN 1902) as mandated under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Invoice data showed that while the commensurate post‑tax price for Wai Wai Chicken Noodles Mimi 35g worked out to ₹226.66 per carton, the actual price charged was ₹237.57, which was treated as excess recovery from buyers.
Counsel for the respondent argued that the company was facing sustained cost pressures. It pointed to higher prices of wheat flour, palm oil, and spices, increased packaging costs, and higher freight expenses. It also said competition in the instant noodles market limited its pricing flexibility and stressed that the maximum retail price had not been increased during the period.
The tribunal found that most of the cost increases cited by the company related to periods before the GST rate cut and did not justify the increase in base prices after the reduction took effect. Relying on the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt Ltd v. UOI, the Tribunal observed:
“The respondent has failed to establish any cogent basis for increasing the base prices of the subject goods despite the reduction of GST rate from 18% to 12%.”
Upholding the anti‑profiteering authority’s calculation, the Tribunal confirmed profiteering of ₹90.9 lakh and directed that the amount be deposited equally into the Consumer Welfare Funds of the Centre and the States.
The bench of Anil Kumar Gupta declined to impose interest or penalty, noting that the statutory provisions enabling such levy came into force only after the period during which the violation was found to have occurred
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
