Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal – Dated:- 15-6-2018 – Undue anti-profiteering being resorted to by businesses and trade in GST regime are yet to be proved by the customers or victimized complainants and so also affirmed by and action taken against them by the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) in India. The third order of NAA on the complaint M/s Abel Space Solution LLP, New Delhi against M/s Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai has been pronounced in favour of supplier. Thus all three NAA order pronounced so far have gone in favour of supplier of goods or services / companies and against the complainants. The NAA order have so far been in favour of companies, viz, Order No. Date of Order Complaint Against Business Activity 1. 27.03.2018 Vrandavaneshwree Automotive Pvt. Ltd, Bareilly [ 2018 (4) TMI 1377 – THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY ] Car Dealer 2. 04.05.2018 KRBL Ltd., New Delhi [ 2018 (5) TMI 760 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY ] Basma
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ate understanding of GST provisions at the time of filing the complaint in September, 2017. But the authority considered the investigative report of the Directorate General of Safeguard (DGS) before ordering the dismissal of complaint. The NAA ruled that in respect of the two invoices dated July 27, 2017, as the installation of the second lift had been completed after coming into force of the CGST Act, 2017, he was liable to be charged GST at the rate prevalent on July 27, 2017. Case Facts Case No. 4/2018 Complainant Abel Space Solution LLP, New Delhi Supplier of Goods Schindler India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Date of Application 20.09.2017 Date of forwarding to DGSG by Standing Committee 15.02.2018 Report of DGSG 16.04.2018 Date of Institution of case 17.04.2018 Date of NAA order 31.05.2018 Order By 3 Members Bench (including Chairman, NAA) In the instant case two lifts were ordered in December, 2016 out of which first lift was supplied, installed, invoiced and paid for before GST regime itse
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
CGST Rules, 2017 to the Standing Committee alleging that company had not charged GST on the base price of the lift ordered by him from the company, after excluding the pre-GST Excise Duty on the material component and thus he had been charged tax twice on the same material. This was referred by the Standing Committee to DGSG for further investigations. The complaint had subsequently withdrawn his complaint vide letter dated 28.03.2018 sent to DGSG and he also did not availed the opportunity of being heard before NAA. The reason cited for withdrawal was that he was not fully aware of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 when he had filed his application on 20.09.2017 and since the issues pertaining to case had been further clarified subsequently, his application should be treated to have been withdrawn. According to law, the supply and installation of lift amounted to Works Contract and as per Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, value of the service portion
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ted in the GST regime, and hence the point for levy of tax for supply of material fell under the GST regime and accordingly, two more invoices were issued on 27.07.2017 wherein the applicable GST was correctly charged. The company claimed that the Excise Duty benefit could only be given if the material was dispatched on or after 01.07.2017 and since all the material was delivered before 30.06.2017 and hence, he was not in a position to pass such benefit to the Applicant. The NAA, therefore, finally ordered that there is no substance in the claim made by the applicant and therefore, the Authority accepted the report dated 16-04-2017 filed by the DGSG under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The proceedings were dropped as no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 has been established. It is understood that NAA has under its sleeve over 50 complaints to be examined and adjudicated. It is hoped that in next few weeks, we may witness more orders from NAA agains
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =