Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Vishwanath Cinema Hall 70MM

01 · Facts of the case and issues

The Principal Commissioner’s complaint alleged that Vishwanath Cinema retained the benefit of the cinema-ticket GST reductions effective 1 January 2019. DGAP’s initial report dated 26 February 2024 proposed Rs. 6,00,934. Its tables applied 18%-to-12% treatment even to some higher-price classes. CCI’s 14 March 2024 direction sought reinvestigation of rate treatment, turnover differences and the relevant period. These are investigative histories, not the final Tribunal’s independent findings on each tax-return entry.

The revised analysis distinguished tickets above Rs. 100, applying the 28%-to-18% rate change, from tickets at or below Rs. 100, applying 18%-to-12%. It printed Rs. 3,04,225 for the higher-price category and Rs. 5,95,048 for the lower, totaling Rs. 8,99,273 for 1 January–30 June 2019. DGAP attributed earlier turnover differences to a formula error and non-ticket receipts and treated the remaining difference as immaterial. The source identifies the supplementary report as 24 June 2024 in places, but the administrative summary and operative acceptance identify 18 June 2024.

The theatre relied on Telangana licensing regulation, permissions for ticket-price increases, distributor influence over new-film prices and the assertion that cinema shows were services without inventory or conventional invoices. It produced 2025 permissions for AKHANDA-2 and OG as examples. Its submissions also alternated between claims of independent pricing and claims that prices could change only with licensing approval.

The Tribunal records that the theatre did not specifically contest the reports’ methodology or quantified findings. It nevertheless had to decide the live legal and evidentiary defences to liability. No underlying ticket-level dataset, tax-return reconciliation or complete revised report is appended to the judgment.

Source: Complaint and first investigation: paragraphs 1–7, physical pp. 2–6. Reinvestigation, revised tables and turnover: paragraphs 8–9, pp. 6–10. Party positions and 2025 permissions: paragraphs 12–19, pp. 10–16. Scope of numerical contest: paragraph 31, p. 21.

02 · Discussion and reasoning of the Hon’ble Court

The Tribunal’s own analysis begins with the statutory discussion at paragraph 20. Paragraphs 25–28 find no relevant 2019 request, licensing permission or High Court order supporting the theatre’s case. The 2025 film permissions did not establish the position during the investigated period. Even considering them for argument, the Tribunal found no prohibition on reducing prices when GST fell. Its criticism of contradictory pleas is an attributed judicial finding, not a new independent allegation by this note.

Paragraphs 29–30 reject the argument that the absence of goods or conventional invoices removes the obligation: the theatre supplied registered taxable services and filed returns. Paragraphs 31–33 then treat the report’s figures as uncontested, drawing on Thangam and Lohia Properties concerning specific admissions and denials. The reproduced Thangam passage also preserves judicial discretion to require proof of an admitted fact; the note does not reduce it to an absolute rule that every unchallenged calculation must be accepted in all GST proceedings. The reproduced quotation ends abruptly and is not offered as the complete Supreme Court passage.

The Tribunal also uses Sudarshan Theatre and Mallikarjuna Cinema reasoning on GST pass-through and State price ceilings. Mallikarjuna’s Rs. 3 maintenance-charge discussion is quoted, but no separate quantified maintenance-charge assessment is made in this final. Nor does the source establish that all State regulation is displaced in every cinema case. The finding rests on the evidence and pricing defences actually advanced here.

The revised total is preserved without certifying all underlying arithmetic. The higher-category table mixes an excess-tax heading of 12% with its 18% calculation and total label. Some displayed base-price differences involve rounding. The lower-category full revised ticket-quantity computation is not reproduced. The stated turnover reconciliation compares Rs. 1,38,29,858 with Rs. 1,38,13,378, a displayed difference of Rs. 16,480, while the text says Rs. 16,481. These limitations do not justify inventing a replacement demand.

Other source discrepancies remain visible: 24/26 February and 18/24 June report dates vary; the December ticket price is described as Rs. 118 in one passage but Rs. 112 in the revised table; an August 2019 recital lies outside the stated January–June period. Paragraph 17 prints an AKHANDA-2 release date in 2005 while its reproduced permission says 2025. Rule 129(c) and the Government Order date remain unverified source references. The official Notification 18/2024 corrects the printed institutional date to 30 September 2024, effective 1 October 2024; the incorrect 24 February date is not endorsed.

Paragraphs 35–38 hold Section 171 contravened, apply the Fund route because recipients are unidentifiable, and exclude penalty for the period preceding 1 January 2020. The final paragraph specifies 18% interest from 28 June to 30 June 2019, as applicable, without a separately reasoned explanation of the endpoint. That wording is not expanded to collection-to-deposit interest or a calculated two-/three-day sum by this note.

Source: Own findings: paragraphs 20–38, physical pp. 16–24. Licensing evidence: paragraphs 25–28, pp. 19–20. Services and admission analogy: paragraphs 29–33, pp. 20–23. Revised-table and date discrepancies: pp. 7–11, 14–15 and 21. Liability/penalty: paragraphs 35–38, p. 24.

03 · Judicial decision and operative relief

The Tribunal accepted the report dated 26 February 2024 and supplementary report identified in the operative order as 18 June 2024, and rejected the theatre’s objections. Read with the adopted revised findings, the principal is Rs. 8,99,273; the operative paragraph does not repeat that number. It directs 50% of the profiteered amount and interest to the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the remaining 50% and interest to the Telangana State Fund. No further GST is added to the source’s tax-inclusive calculation.

The interest direction is 18% from 28 June 2019 to 30 June 2019, as applicable. No rupee interest calculation is provided. The note preserves those dates without assuming an alternative endpoint or importing the wording of another cinema order. No penalty is leviable for the stated pre-2020 period.

There is no express numerical deposit deadline, Commissioner reporting deadline or alternative Central-Fund contingency in this final. A copy is to be communicated to the concerned CGST/SGST Commissionerate for record and necessary action, if any. The judgment is pronounced in open court; the typed and visible digital-signature dates are 11 June 2026. Actual deposit and subsequent clarification remain unverified.

Source: Principal in accepted revised findings: paragraphs 9(v)–(vi) and 13(i), physical pp. 9–10 and 13. Acceptance, split, exact interest wording, no penalty and circulation: paragraphs 39–43, p. 25. Temporal penalty reasoning: paragraph 36, p. 24.

04 · In favour of

Final substantive liability judgment with qualified statutory remedies. The Tribunal independently determines the contested licensing and service-supply defences, while treating the revised numerical report as uncontested. The final label does not certify appellate finality or unrestricted accuracy of every report entry.

Source: Paragraphs 25–43, physical pp. 19–25.