Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal – Dated:- 8-12-2018 – In over a dozen of complaints adjudicated by National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA), majority of the cases have been decided in favour of trade and industry and against the complainant, for want of evidence or complaint proved to be non sustainable. In yet another case of Fabindia Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad, the NAA has ordered in favour of Fabindia ruling that there is no contravention of section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as profiteering was not established. In Mandalika Sakunthala, Hyderabad and DGAP, New Delhi v. Fabindia Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad (2018) 11 TMI 1011 (NAA), the NAA vide its Order dated 16.11.2018 has concluded that the complaint was based on wrong pre-GST tax rates in respect of two items, viz, bathing bar and instant drink power (50gms) and as such, there was no case for charging more rate. Infact, for both the products being procured by inter-state sale from sole vendors, post
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ll being sold at the above MRP by increasing their base prices. Thus, the company had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, action should be taken against it. The complaint was examined and investigated as per procedure. The company submitted that there was increase in the rate of tax and hence no benefit could be passed on by it and that it was procuring both the products on inter-state basis from their sole vendors and his tax liability had increased by 3.5% post implementation of GST from 14.5% VAT to 18% GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and therefore, it had suffered loss in his margin on sale of both the products. It also submitted that MRP of the products sold by the company was constant for the last 3 years and there was no rate reduction or increase, after implementation of the GST although the rate of tax had increased. It was reveled in investigation that Value Added Tax (VAT) was applicable on these products @ 14.5%.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
o ₹ 80.51 by suffering loss of ₹ 2.46 per bathing bar in gross margin during the GST regime. According to DGAP report, as the reduction in the base price was more than the lTC, the allegation of profiteering was not established. In case of Milk powder, there was no change in it he ITC and the company s cost price had remained the same at ₹ 18.86. When the sale of old pre-GST stock of the above product in the GST era was compared with the sale in the pre-GST regime, although the rate of tax had increased from 14.5% to 18% after the implementation of the GST the company had still sold the above product at the same MRP of ₹ 501-, by reducing his base price from ₹ 43.67 to ₹ 42.37 and had thus suffered a loss of ₹ 1.30 in his gross margin in the GST regime. In this case also since the base price had been reduced to maintain the same MRP inspite of increase in the tax rate, the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Ac
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =