Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Shree Sai Kripa Marketing; J. K. Helene Curtis Ltd., pro-forma respondent

01 · Facts of the case and issues

Shree Sai Kripa Marketing distributed goods of J. K. Helene Curtis Ltd., identified in the current caption as the pro-forma respondent. A complaint concerning Park Avenue Good Morning after-shave lotion, 50 ml, led to investigation of the combined GST reduction from 28% to 18% effective 15 November 2017. The adopted investigation period was 15 November 2017–31 March 2019. The source repeatedly reverses respondent numbers between historical material and the current caption; this note uses names to distinguish the distributor’s liability from the manufacturer’s.

DGAP compared the pre-reduction weighted average base price, after discounts, for 1–14 November 2017 with actual post-reduction invoice prices in the corresponding channel. Its illustration uses 2,220 units with taxable value Rs. 1,58,322, displayed average Rs. 71.32, and commensurate tax-inclusive price Rs. 84.15. Invoice GWTSSI180566 dated 21 November 2017 is shown as 12 units, Rs. 1,082 total, actual unit price Rs. 90.19 and excess Rs. 72.48. These are the source’s printed figures; the unit quotient has a visible inconsistency and the example is not an independent audit of the full dataset.

The earlier NAA order 25/2020 dated 11 May 2020 recorded Rs. 18,48,34,084 for the manufacturer, Rs. 38,64,891 for the distributor and Rs. 8,97,253 as the manufacturer’s historical upstream profiteering from the distributor. These are historical figures, not cumulative fresh awards in this judgment. The source records that the distributor challenged duplicated invoices in W.P.(C) 8161/2020, leading to a Delhi High Court remand after Revenue acknowledged some factual mistakes, with all rights and contentions left open. After that remand, DGAP’s 17 December 2020 clarification revised the distributor amount to Rs. 19,32,446.

The revised State table lists Delhi Rs. 19,02,069, Haryana Rs. 26,458 and Uttar Pradesh Rs. 3,919. The distributor contested statutory machinery, limitation, the average-to-actual comparison, supplier-level double recovery, inclusion of tax already remitted, overlooked discounts and commercial reasons. Its separate alternative table proposed Rs. 19,38,579 before deducting Rs. 2,94,780 tax, giving Rs. 16,43,799, while the preceding sentence printed Rs. 16,43,797. Neither alternative is the final award.

Source: Caption, framed issues and period: physical pp. 1–6, paragraphs 1–3. Worked Table A and old NAA amounts: pp. 6–9. Remand, submissions and alternative table: paragraphs 4–7, pp. 9–17. Revised State table: p. 17. Additional final submissions: paragraph 11, pp. 19–20.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The Tribunal’s own reasons begin at the second paragraph numbered 11, on physical page 20. Relying on Reckitt Benckiser, it rejects the absence-of-machinery objection and treats Section 171 as a pass-through obligation rather than price fixing. The source’s paragraph 12 broadly describes real-estate methodology as incorrect; that description is not adopted here as a universal rule for all real-estate investigations, nor as a direct conclusion about this distributor’s products.

On time, paragraphs 14–20 rely on the directory character of DGAP reporting timelines and the unrestricted nature of the High Court remand. GSTAT reasons that the predecessor authority’s clarification direction after an open remand was not barred. This remains its application to the objections before it; the quoted report-timing passage is not itself an independently verified ruling about every Standing Committee referral or an unlimited investigation period. The source’s report and daily-order dates conflict and are not silently repaired.

The Tribunal distinguishes the manufacturer’s failure to pass on its own rate reduction from the distributor’s duty towards its customers. It relies on Raj & Co. for pricing discretion, acknowledges the absence here of the same contractual document and nevertheless treats a retailer as having discretion to discount out of profit. This is the Tribunal’s inference in this case, not proof of an identified contractual clause or a new general industry finding by this note.

A material contradiction must remain visible: paragraph 22 says DGAP’s calculation method “is faulty”, while paragraphs 27–28 uphold the revised computation and the average-to-actual method. Paragraph 27 also describes correction of duplicate invoices in language combining principal and retailer calculations. The fresh award is Rs. 19,32,446, but that operative result does not erase the contrary wording or prove that all possible upstream/downstream overlap has independently been audited. The underlying Annexure 34 and full invoice reconciliation are not reproduced.

Paragraphs 29–30 reject deduction of GST already paid to the Exchequer, reasoning that the consumer bore tax on the excess price and that remittance did not restore that benefit. The final quantified amount remains the adopted Rs. 19,32,446; the note does not add a second GST layer. DGAP’s earlier Section 15(3)(a) response about invoice-recorded discounts remains DGAP’s explanation rather than a separately reasoned discount finding.

Paragraphs 31–36 apply the rebuttable-presumption approach to commercial factors: genuine reasons need cogent evidence and cannot merely evade the statutory duty. The Tribunal rejects the explanation on this record; it does not forbid every commercial price increase. Paragraphs 37–38 reject the proposition that a pending Supreme Court constitutional challenge alone removes jurisdiction in the absence of a stay. This is not Supreme Court merits approval or a present case-status certification.

The displayed State rows add exactly to Rs. 19,32,446. Half the old distributor figure, Rs. 38,64,891, is Rs. 19,32,445.50, consistent with the revised whole-rupee total after rounding, but halving alone does not verify the missing invoice schedule. In the worked illustration Rs. 1,082 divided by 12 is approximately Rs. 90.1667 rather than the printed Rs. 90.19; Rs. 6.04 multiplied by 12 does equal the printed Rs. 72.48. These checks expose limited source precision, not a replacement liability.

Source: Own reasons: second paragraph 11 through paragraph 38, physical pp. 20–27. Contradiction: paragraph 22, p. 23, versus paragraphs 27–28, p. 24. Illustration: pp. 6–7. Revised State rows: p. 17. Conflicting chronology: paragraphs 3(b), 5, 7, 15 and 19, pp. 5, 10, 15 and 21–22.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

Paragraph 39 holds, on the preponderance of probability and evidence, that Shree Sai Kripa Marketing profiteered Rs. 19,32,446. Paragraph 42 directs deposit in the ratio 50:50 between the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the relevant State Consumer Welfare Funds of Haryana, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. This is an equal Central/aggregate-State allocation, not an equal four-way split. Half the total is Rs. 9,66,223, a derived figure rather than a separately printed rupee direction. The State-wise profiteering table supplies the geographic amounts, but this note does not invent additional allocation instructions.

Paragraphs 40–41 expressly decline to impose any interest or penalty because the relevant amendments postdated the alleged profiteering period. The earlier NAA quotation mentioning interest is history and does not alter this final relief. The selected paragraphs do not expressly name a numbered penalty subsection or fix a penalty amount. No further GST layer, upstream award or deduction is added to the final principal.

Paragraph 43 requires the concerned Commissioner to submit a compliance report to the Tribunal within four months from receipt of the order. This is a receipt-based reporting obligation, not an express four-month taxpayer deposit deadline. No separate numerical deposit deadline or alternative Fund-unavailability direction is stated. Copies are directed to the respondent and concerned CGST/SGST Commissioner.

The order is pronounced in open court. The cover and typed final-order date are 27 January 2026; the administrative summary and visible final-page digital-signature annotation are dated 28 January 2026. The note keeps these distinct and does not certify cryptographic signature validity. Actual deposits, receipt dates, reporting and subsequent clarification are unverified.

Source: Final determination, exclusion of interest/penalty, Fund split and report: paragraphs 39–43, physical p. 27. Circulation, pronouncement and signature: paragraph 44, p. 28. Decision and summary dates: pp. 1–2. State table: p. 17.

04 · In favour of

Final substantive adjudication after remand, with developed own reasoning and qualified ancillary relief. The 2026 order is not itself a remand, settlement or compliance closure. Final describes its adjudicative stage, not appellate exhaustion, present enforceability or satisfaction of the directions.

Source: Own reasons and operative directions: second paragraph 11 through paragraph 44, physical pp. 20–28.