Samsung India Anti-Profiteering Case: GSTAT Directs DGAP To Re-Examine Cost, CSD Supply Issues

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at New Delhi has directed the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to re-examine certain issues in the anti-profiteering proceedings involving Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. after the matter had earlier been reserved for pronouncement of the final order.

A bench comprising President Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member A. Venu Prasad passed the order after considering the matter and holding a conference between the members of the bench, concluding that certain aspects required further examination by the investigating authority.

The tribunal noted that during the hearing, counsel for Samsung raised objections regarding certain findings in the DGAP's investigation report. The bench observed that specific issues required further scrutiny by the DGAP before the matter could proceed further.

These include whether negative values were ignored while calculating the alleged profiteered amount; whether supplies made through the Canteen Stores Department (CSD) channel were erroneously considered; and whether increases in the cost of materials, prices, and customs duties, particularly in September 2018, were ignored during the computation.

Samsung also submitted that the DGAP had not contested the figures presented by the company during the course of the hearing and had not considered various factors affecting costs in its report. The company sought an opportunity to present its position if any further computation or clarification was required.

While asking the DGAP to revisit the issue, the tribunal also referred to the Delhi High Court's observations in the Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. case on the scope of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The High Court had observed that although a reduction in tax rates generally requires a corresponding reduction in prices, a supplier can justify price changes if it is able to demonstrate, with cogent material, that other factors such as increased costs necessitated the adjustment.

The bench clarified that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the dispute at this stage. It directed the DGAP to examine the issues flagged in the order and submit a supplementary report within two months. The matter is scheduled to be taken up again on May 12, 2026.