Sh. Rishi Gupta Versus M/s. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.
GST
2018 (7) TMI 1490 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 623 (N. A. P. A.)
NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – NAPA
Dated:- 18-7-2018
Case No. 5/2018
GST
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 Rs. 14,852/- by M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai (here-in-after referred to as the Supplier). At the time of delivery, another invoice dated 29.11.2017 was issued by the Supplier
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nd on the gross amount, a discount of Rs. 500/- was given to the applicant by the Supplier. He had also found that the discounted price of Rs. 14,852/- could be further broken into Rs. 11,603.13/- as the base price and Rs. 3248.87/- as the GST@ 28%. Therefore the DGAP had stated that the base price of the supplier was Rs. 11,993.75/- with discount of Rs. 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 Rs. 11,993.87/- and hence the price charged to the Applicant was Rs. 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 Rs. 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 He had also concluded that the discount of Rs. 500/- which was offered earlier had been withdrawn by the Supplier vide his invoice dated 29.11.2017 which did not am
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
27.4.2018 received from the Respondent the excess amount of Rs. 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, Director, Sh. Prasanth Bhat, authorized representative and Sh. Pankaj Bathla, Sr. Manager appeared for the Responde
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ondent 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 Rs. 15,352/- shown in the invoice could be broken up into Rs. 11,993.75/- as base price and Rs. 3358.25/- as GST @ 28%. It is also revealed that on this gross amount a discount of Rs. 500/- was offered and the discounted price of Rs. 14,852/- was further broken up into Rs. 11,603.13/- as base price and Rs. 3248.87/- as GST @ 28%. Therefore it is apparent that the base price of the Supplier was Rs. 11,993.75/- and on the cum tax price a discount of Rs. 500/- was offered. It is also revea
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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 Rs. 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 supply was made after reduction of GST to 18%. The Respondent has claimed that he had already initiated the process of refund of excess tax collected from the recipients. Ke
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =