Cinema Hall Must Pass GST Rate Cut to Moviegoers: GSTAT Upholds Rs. 11.88 Lakh Anti-Profiteering Demand:

GSTAT held cinema hall guilty of anti-profiteering; Asked to deposit Rs. 11.88 lakh for failing to pass on GST rate reduction benefits on movie tickets
GSTAT Upholds Rs. 11.88 Lakh Anti-Profiteering Demand on Cinema Ticket GST Cut

Cinema Hall Must Pass GST Rate Cut to Moviegoers: GSTAT Upholds Rs. 11.88 Lakh Anti-Profiteering Demand
Bhavya Construction Pvt. Ltd., which operates Bramaramba Cinema Hall (70 MM) at Hyderabad, was investigated for alleged anti-profiteering following the reduction of GST rates on cinema tickets with effect from 01.01.2019. Despite the rate cut from 28% to 18% on tickets above Rs. 100 and from 18% to 12% on tickets priced at Rs. 100 or below, the cinema continued to charge the same gross ticket prices.
The Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) found that instead of reducing ticket prices, the respondent increased the base price, thereby retaining the tax benefit meant for consumers. For the period from 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019, profiteering was quantified at Rs. 11,88,482 (inclusive of GST).
Main Issue: Whether the respondent contravened Section 171 of the CGST Act by not passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction on cinema tickets to consumers through commensurate price reduction.
Tribunal Held: The GST Appellate Tribunal held that assessee failed to pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction and had profiteered Rs. 11,88,482. The Tribunal rejected the respondent’s defences based on state cinema regulation, alleged approval of higher ticket prices, movie-wise computation, absence of a statutory methodology, and exclusion of GST component from profiteering.
The respondent was directed to deposit the profiteered amount within 30 days, Rs. 5,94,241 to the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and Rs. 5,94,241 to the Telangana State Consumer Welfare Fund (or entirely to the Central Fund if the State Fund is unavailable). No interest was ordered, as the relevant provision applied prospectively, and no penalty was imposed as Section 171(3A) came into force after the violation period.
To Read Full Order, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2164My Recent Articles
- ITAT Remands Appeal After Finding NFAC Ignored 89 Pages of Evidence on Cash Deposits and Flat Improvement CostPremium
- ITAT Grants Fresh Opportunity in Rs 2.63 Crore Foreign Bank Credit Addition CasePremium
- ITAT Deletes Section 68 Addition on Explained Demonetisation Cash DepositsPremium
- ITAT Grants Section 80P Relief to Souharda Society, Remands Demonetisation DepositsPremium
- ITAT Deletes Additions After Ex-Army Personnel Explains Bank Credits with EvidencePremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








