2018 (7) TMI 1490 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 623 (N. A. P. A.) – Profiteering – refund of excess amount of GST paid – contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
–
Held that:- It is apparent that the base price of the Supplier was ₹ 11,993.75/- and on the cum tax price a discount of ₹ 500/- was offered. It is also revealed that the Almirah was supplied to the Applicant by the Supplier vide invoice dated 29.11.2017 in which the base price was again shown as ₹ 11,993.87/- and GST of ₹ 2158/- was charged @ 18%, as the same had been reduced by the Govt, of India on 14.11.2017 from 28% to 18%. Therefore, it is clear that the Supplier had charged correct rates of GST which were prevalent at the time of placing of the order and the supply of the Almirah through the above two invoices, therefore, no illegality had been done by the Supplier while executing the order placed by the Applicant.
–
The Supp
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e and therefore, also the Supplier cannot be held guilty under Section 171 of the Act.
–
The allegation of profiteering made by the Applicant against the Respondent as well as the Supplier is not established – the application is not maintainable and is dismissed. – Case No. 5/2018 Dated:- 18-7-2018 – MR. B. N. SHARMA, CHAIRMAN, MR. J. C. CHAUHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND MR. R. BHAGYADEVI, TECHNICAL MEMBER ORDER 1. The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 11.01.2018 was filed by the above Applicant before the Standing Committee, constituted under Rule 123 (1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 stating that he had ordered a Godrej Interio Slimline Metal Almirah through the Respondent vide his order No. OD 110666745976477000 on 04.11.2017 and a tax invoice dated 07.11.2017 was issued to him for an amount of ₹ 14,852/- by M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai (here-in-after referred to as the Supplier). At the time of delivery, anothe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
o ₹ 11,993.75/- as base price and ₹ 3358.25/- as GST @ 28% and on the gross amount, a discount of ₹ 500/- was given to the applicant by the Supplier. He had also found that the discounted price of ₹ 14,852/- could be further broken into ₹ 11,603.13/- as the base price and ₹ 3248.87/- as the GST@ 28%. Therefore the DGAP had stated that the base price of the supplier was ₹ 11,993.75/- with discount of ₹ 500/-. He had also stated that in the case of the invoice dated 29.11.2017 it was apparent that the Supplier had charged GST at the reduced rate of 18% on the base price of ₹ 11,993.87/- and hence the price charged to the Applicant was ₹ 14,151.87/-. The DGAP had therefore concluded that the Supplier had charged GST at the prescribed rate of 18% on the base price of ₹ 11,993.87/- and thus he had not increased the earlier base price after coming in to force of the GST. He had also concluded that the discount of ₹ 500/-
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nt of tax collected by him. The DGAP vide his letter dated 11.05.2018 had informed that as per the letter dated 27.4.2018 received from the Respondent the excess amount of ₹ 700/-collected from the Applicant had been refunded to him on 18.01.2018. The Respondent had also stated that he was only offering a market place which enabled the sellers to offer their products for direct sale to the customers for which it was charging commission and the sellers were entirely responsible for the supply of goods and services and for the payment of taxes. The Respondent had also informed that there were 7254 cases in which the rate of GST at the time of booking of the orders on his platform was higher than the rate of GST prevalent at the time of delivery and the Respondent had initiated the process of refund of the differential amount as per the instructions of the sellers. 5. It was decided to hear the Applicant as well as the Respondent on 29.05.2018 during which Sh. Gopi Krishna Obulam, D
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
it margin by the Supplier and hence it could not be treated as an act of profiteering. He had also informed that the Respondent was not a Supplier and hence the refund of excess tax was distinct from profiteering and hence it did not fall under the ambit of Section 171 of the Act. 7. We have carefully heard the Respondent and have also perused the material placed on the record and it is revealed that the Applicant had placed an order for supply of a Godrej Interio Slimline Metal Almirah on the Supplier through the Respondent on 4.11.2017 for which a tax invoice was issued by the Supplier on 7.11.2017. The gross amount of ₹ 15,352/- shown in the invoice could be broken up into ₹ 11,993.75/- as base price and ₹ 3358.25/- as GST @ 28%. It is also revealed that on this gross amount a discount of ₹ 500/- was offered and the discounted price of ₹ 14,852/- was further broken up into ₹ 11,603.13/- as base price and ₹ 3248.87/- as GST @ 28%. Therefore i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
increasing his base price or appropriated the excess amount of tax charged from the Applicant and hence the allegation of violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act is not established. 8. It is also apparent that the Respondent was not the Supplier/manufacturer of the Almirah and was only an agent who had offered his platform to the Supplier to sell the Almirah by charging commission, and was also not responsible for collection or refund of GST and hence he cannot be held accountable for contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. It has also been found that the Supplier has refunded an amount of ₹ 700/- through the Respondent which was charged as tax in excess from the Applicant at the time of the placing of the order. It has also come to the notice from the perusal of the letter dated 27.4.2018 that the Respondent had charged 28% GST in the case of 7254 orders which were placed on his platform by the various buyers before 15.11.2017 and in which the su
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =