Kumar Gandharv Versus KRBL Ltd.
GST
2018 (5) TMI 760 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 412 (N. A. P. A.)
NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – NAPA
Dated:- 4-5-2018
Case No. 3 of 2018
GST
MR. B.N. SHARMA, MR. J.C. CHAUHAN AND MS. R. BHAGYADEVI
ORDER
1. The brief facts of this case are that the above Applicant vide his application dated 27.11.2017 (Annexure-I), sent through e-mail had intimated that the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax on “India Gate Basmati Rice” had not been passed on to the consumers as it's Maximum Retail Price (MRP) had been increased, and hence margin of profit had also been increased by the above Respondent. He had also attached images of the details printed on the 10 Kg. package of “India Gate Basmati Rice” (Mini Mogra) packed in the months of August, 2017 and October, 2017 showing the printed price of Rs. 540/- & Rs. 585/-respectively.
2. The above application was examined by the Standing Committ
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nce he was not paying GST on the outward supply of Basmati Rice and this product had been made taxable vide Notification No. 28/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure-ll) since then the Respondent was paying GST @ 5%.
4. The DGSG had also intimated that the GSTR-3B returns of the Respondent pertaining to Haryana for the months of September, 2017 (Annexure-III), October, 2017 (Annexure-IV) and November, 2017 (Annexure-V) had been examined and it was found that the ITC available as a percentage of the total value of taxable supplies during these three months varied between 2.69% to 3% however, as the GST rate on taxable outward supply was 5%, the ITC available was insufficient to discharge the GST liability and thus, the balance amount of GST had been paid in cash during the above period and since the ITC available was less than the GST liability on the outward supplies, there was no net benefit of ITC which could had been passed on to the consumers and therefore there was
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
y were directed to supply further clarifications which were submitted by them on 17.04.2018 and it was contended that the GST rate on outward supply of their product was 5% and the ITC available to discharge the GST liability was not sufficient and the balance amount of GST was paid by the Respondent in cash therefore, there was no benefit of ITC which could be passed on to the consumers. They had further submitted that the prices of 'rice' being an agricultural product, changed frequently because of the market forces and the other cost factors and were not solely dependent on the tax rates. They had also contended that the price of paddy had increased by more than 30% in the year 2017 as compared to the year 2016 which constituted 75% of total cost of production, however, because of stiff competition in the market they had not passed on the total cost burden to the consumers and had increased the price of their product by 8% only from Rs. 540/- to Rs. 584/- in spite of increas
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nto force of the CGST Act, 2017 it was levied GST @ 5% w.e.f. 22.09.2017. The Respondent was also made eligible to avail !TC w.e.f. the above date. However, the ITC claimed by the Respondent was not sufficient to meet his output tax liability and he had to pay the balance amount of tax in cash as is evident from the perusal of the table prepared by the DGSG. It is also apparent from the returns filed by the respondent for the months of September, 2017, October, 2017 and November, 2017 that the ITC available to him as a percentage of the total value of taxable supplies was between 2.69% to 3% whereas the GST on the outward supply of his product was 5% which was not sufficient to discharge his tax liability. Moreover in this case the rate of tax has been increased from 0% to 5% instead of reduction in the same. Therefore, there appears to be no reason for treating the price fixed by the Respondent as violation of the provisions of the Anti-Profiteering clause.
7. It is also revealed fro
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =