Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Mallikarjuna Cinema Hall, 70MM, Hyderabad

01 · Facts of the case and issues

Mallikarjuna operated a Hyderabad cinema with Maharaja Circle, Dress Circle and First Class tickets. The judgment describes the combined GST reduction from 28% to 18% for tickets priced Rs. 101 or more, and from 18% to 12% for tickets priced Rs. 100 or less, with effect from 1 January 2019. The DGAP investigation covered 1 January–30 June 2019 and alleged Rs. 16,50,166 of benefit retained through increased base prices rather than commensurate customer-price reduction.

The cinema relied on the Telangana cinema-regulation framework, Government Order Ms. No. 100 of 26 April 2013, a High Court order of 31 October 2016 in W.P. 19046/2014 and subsequent Government Order No. 75 dated 23 June 2017. It argued that its fares were permitted within State limits, that costs, demand and competition justified prices, and that a Rs. 3 maintenance charge had not used the claimed higher Rs. 7 allowance. Those are the respondent’s arguments and source-recited history, not a finding that every stated State-law permission exempted GST obligations.

Table A compares December 2018 prices with January–June 2019. For one Maharaja blockbuster category, the earlier Rs. 118 gross price yields the printed Rs. 92.19 base; later gross prices of Rs. 130 or Rs. 120 yield printed bases of Rs. 110.17 or Rs. 101.69. The table’s commensurate gross figure is Rs. 108.78, and the excess bases are printed as Rs. 17.98 and Rs. 9.51. Other categories cover Rs. 100, Rs. 70 and Rs. 30 prior prices and later higher or unchanged gross prices. Table B applies the category differences, excess GST and ticket counts to the aggregate Rs. 16,50,166. These are adopted report figures, not an independent reconstruction of all underlying ticket sales.

Paragraphs 24–25 state that the numerical method and tables were not disputed; the contested questions concerned legal justification and interest. Paragraph 17 reproduces the cinema’s submission that the rate cut offered an opportunity to recover costs while keeping customer prices constant. The Tribunal raised the prospective-interest question and afforded further argument in August and September 2025. The administrative form lists hearings in 2025, while paragraph 18 prints a 2028 hearing date.

Source: Identity and summary: physical pp. 1–2. Background and defences: paragraphs 3–20, pp. 3–12. Issues and price tables: paragraphs 21–26, pp. 12–17. Interest re-hearing: paragraphs 18–20, pp. 11–12.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The Tribunal separately addresses the defences rather than merely accepting a report. It finds that the State cinema framework fixes maximum ticket prices while leaving discretion to charge less within those ceilings. In paragraph 28 it holds that the State enactment, Government orders and cited High Court history do not authorise retention of GST-rate reductions. It also holds that the Rs. 3 maintenance amount forms part of the relevant ticket value for GST and pass-through analysis. This is the Tribunal’s case-specific legal response, not independent verification of every State instrument or of every cinema’s actual tariff permission.

On genuine commercial price changes, the judgment relies on Reckitt Benckiser and explains that the presumption of corresponding price reduction is rebuttable with cogent evidence. A supplier may change base prices for real commercial reasons, but cannot use an unsupported justification merely to cancel the tax benefit. The Tribunal treats the quoted written submission and undisputed price data as supporting non-passing. Paragraph 27 discusses judicial and evidentiary admissions and the absence of evidence explaining away the statement. The note does not turn every assertion about profit or every without-prejudice alternative into a conclusive admission in other proceedings.

Paragraphs 29–33 consider the amendment to Rule 133(3)(c). Applying prospective-construction principles and the earlier Proctor & Gamble decision, GSTAT concludes that the new Fund-interest burden applies from 28 June 2019, not retrospectively to the whole investigated period and not only from 1 April 2020. It distinguishes the latter date as the separate QR-code amendment’s commencement. The extended quotation from Proctor & Gamble includes that different case’s no-interest conclusion; it is not Mallikarjuna’s ultimate disposition.

For Mallikarjuna, paragraphs 32–33 identify only 28, 29 and 30 June 2019 as the relevant post-amendment days. Paragraph 35 then apportions the six-month principal over 181 days and multiplies by three, prints Rs. 27,350.817 and rounds that down to Rs. 27,350 as the interest-bearing base. It nevertheless orders calculation from 1 January 2019 with annual rests. That starting date conflicts with the stated prospective rationale. The note preserves both; it does not silently substitute 28 June, impose interest on the entire principal, calculate a revised compound-interest amount or certify the pro-rata approach as a universal formula.

Other source inconsistencies also remain visible. Paragraph 24’s category narrative gives Rs. 11,11,212, Rs. 3,55,141 and Rs. 1,83,812, adding to Rs. 16,50,165; the table’s three Maharaja rows instead add to Rs. 11,11,213 and its overall total is Rs. 16,50,166. Some printed per-ticket rounding does not permit exact reproduction of each row from the displayed decimals alone. Paragraph 26 contains Rs. 90.19 alongside Rs. 92.19 and an impossible September-to-June period; paragraph 11 prints June 2025 instead of the investigated 2019 endpoint. Paragraph 18 prints 23 July 2028, paragraph 33 contains 28 September and 18 June date variants, and the quoted QR-code passage includes inconsistent 2017/2022 dates. Paragraph 26 also prints does not require just before quoting Section 171’s mandatory duty; that phrase is not adopted as a legal exemption. None is repaired into a new demand or chronology.

Source: Own merits reasoning: paragraphs 24–28, physical pp. 15–21. Interest reasons and embedded earlier-case quotation: paragraphs 29–33, pp. 21–33. Table B and narrative: pp. 15–16. Operative pro-rata formula: paragraph 35, p. 33. Date and number variants: paragraphs 11, 18, 24, 26, 31 and 33.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

Paragraphs 34–35 accept the DGAP report and direct deposit of principal Rs. 16,50,166. Interest is ordered at 18% only on the separately printed Rs. 27,350 base, derived in the judgment from Rs. 16,50,166 divided by 181 and multiplied by three. The source prints Rs. 27,350.817 and rounds it to Rs. 27,350. It then specifies calculation from 1 January 2019 with annual rests. These are the operative words as written, despite the reasons identifying 28–30 June 2019. No substitute start, end date, rupee-interest total or mathematically revised rounded base is inserted.

The amount with the stated interest is divided equally between the Central and Telangana Consumer Welfare Funds. Paragraph 35 states a one-month deposit period without an express starting trigger; no receipt-based trigger is inserted. If the Telangana Fund has not been created, its half is to go instead to the Central Fund. The final does not specify individual customer refunds or a new separate penalty award. Absence of a penalty direction is not described as an expressly adjudicated Section 171(3A) exemption.

Paragraph 36 requires the concerned Commissioner to report compliance to the Tribunal within four months of receipt of the order. Paragraph 37 requires copies to the cinema and concerned CGST/SGST Commissioner, followed by pronouncement in open court. The order date is 12 September 2025; the visible digital-signature annotation also bears that date at 18:22:37. Visual observation does not validate the cryptographic signature. Actual deposit, interest satisfaction and subsequent enforcement remain unverified.

Source: Operative paragraphs 34–37, physical pp. 33–34; qualified interest rationale paragraphs 32–33, pp. 32–33. Cover and summary pp. 1–2.

04 · In favour of

Final substantive adjudication with partial interest relief, not a remand or mere closure. The principal remains payable under the source; no appellate exhaustion, current absence of stay, completed payment or reliable recomputed interest demand is certified. Later coordinate citations do not amend the operative text.

Source: Own issues and reasons, paragraphs 21–35, pp. 12–33; directions 35–37, pp. 33–34.