38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, January 12, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

GST NAA Finds McDonalds Franchisee Hardcastle Restaurants Guilty Of Profiteering Rs. 7.49 Crore [Read Order]

By LawStreet News Network      22 November, 2018 12:00 AM      0 Comments
GST NAA Finds McDonalds Franchisee Hardcastle Restaurants Guilty Of Profiteering Rs. 7.49 Crore [Read Order]

The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) on November 16, 2018, in the case of Sh. Ravi Charaya & Others v. M/S Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., has found Hardcastle Restaurants, a franchisee of McDonalds, guilty of making an illegal profit to the tune of Rs. 7,49,27,786 by not passing the GST and Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits to its customers starting from November 15, 2017, till  January 31, 2018.

The quorum consisting of Chairman B.N. Sharma and technical members J.C. Chauhan, R. Bhagyadevi and Amand Shah was considering a case filed by Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) under Rule 129(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017.

It was alleged that though the GST on restaurant services had been reduced from 18% to 5%, w.e.f. November 15, 2017, Hardcastle Restaurants increased the base price of 1774 out of its total 1844 products with immediate effect to maintain the prices same as before the reduction of GST, thus not giving the tax benefit to customers and making illegal profit in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Moreover, the franchisee also did not pass on to its customers Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit of Rs.9.33 crores which was availed by it till November 2017.

The respondent denying all the allegations stated that it had to increase the prices of its products due to the increase in the product cost.

It contended that ITC was denied from November 2017 due to which the cost of its products had gone up. It said the net effect of denial of ITC was 10.27% - 12.24% whereas the net incremental revenue was only 9.43%, thus there was no profiteering.

However, the arguments placed by the respondent were rejected by the NAA, observing that the franchisee failed to pass both the GST and ITC benefits to its customers.

The NAA directed the franchisee to reduce the prices commensurate to the tax reduction and ITC benefit. Further direction was also given to deposit the illegal amassed profit of Rs.7.49 crores as per Rule 133(3)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, in 50:50 proportion with the Centre and 10 states in Western and Southern India where the franchisee was running its outlets, with the interest @ 18 %, within three months.

An offence under Section 122(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, was also made out against the franchisee for deliberately enhancing the prices to deny benefit to customers and hence a show cause notice was issued for imposing a penalty under the provision.



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

wrong-bail-orders-alone-without-evidence-of-corruption-cannot-justify-removal-of-judicial-officer-sc
Trending Judiciary
Wrong Bail Orders Alone, Without Evidence of Corruption, Cannot Justify Removal of Judicial Officer: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that wrong bail orders alone cannot justify removal of a judicial officer without proof of corruption, misconduct, or extraneous considerations.

06 January, 2026 07:43 PM
divorced-muslim-woman-can-seek-maintenance-under-crpc-even-after-receiving-amount-under-muslim-women-protection-act-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Divorced Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance Under CrPC Even After Receiving Amount Under Muslim Women Protection Act: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court holds that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even after receiving amounts under the 1986 Act.

06 January, 2026 08:19 PM
delhi-hc-full-bench-settles-bsf-seniority-dispute-rule-of-continuous-regular-appointment-prevails
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Full Bench Settles BSF Seniority Dispute; Rule of ‘Continuous Regular Appointment’ Prevails [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court Full Bench rules BSF seniority is based on date of continuous regular appointment, rejecting claims for antedated seniority due to delayed joining.

06 January, 2026 08:45 PM
borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email