2018 (12) TMI 1601 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 386 (N. A. P. A.) – Profiteering – benefit of GST at the time of implementation of the GST not passed on – contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 – Held that:- It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01-07-2017. There is also no increase in the per unit base price (excluding tax) of the above product and therefore the allegation of profiteering is not established.
–
Though the rate of tax has been reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 14.11.2017 the Kerala Screening Committee has failed to produce any invoice and has not examined any documents to establish that the benefit of tax reduction has not been passed on by the Respondent to the recipient hence DGAP has rightly observed that no supporting documents or invoices of the product ‘Mirror Series Tiles’ for the period post 15.11.2017 have b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ti-Profiteering vide the minutes of it s meeting held on 08.05.2018 had referred the present case to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, alleging profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of Mirror Series Tiles , by not passing on the benefit of GST at the time of implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and w.e.f. 14.11.2017 when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% vide Notification No. 41/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017. Thus it was alleged that the Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017. In this regard, the Kerala State Screening Committee had relied on two invoices issued by the Respondent, one dated 18.04.2017 (Pre-GST) and the other dated 14.07.2017 (Post-CST). 2. The above reference was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering and was further referred to the DGAP vide minutes of its meeting dated 02.07.2018 for detailed investigations under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Ru
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
actual selling prices. Therefore, the DGAP has also examined whether the allegation of profiteering was sustainable at the time of implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 comparing the pre-GST & post-GST sale invoice-wise details of the applicable tax rate and the base price (excluding CST or Central Excise Duty or GST) of the said product supplied by the Respondent as has been furnished in the table below:- Particulars Pre-GST Post-GST Product Description Mirror Series Tiles (HSN Code 6907) Invoice No. 0075 GST0042 Invoice Date 18.04.2017 14.07.2017 M.R P (in Rs.) A 550 – 55% of M.R.P. (45% Abatement) (in Rs.) B=55% of A 302.50 – Central Excise Duty C 12.5% – Central Excise Duty (in Rs.) D=C*B 37.81 – Base Price (excluding Excise Duty or GST or GST) (in Rs.) E 310 310 Base Price for Central Sales Tax (GST) (in Rs.) F = E+D 347.81 – Central Sales Tax (GST) G 2% Central Sales Tax (in Rs.) H=G*F 6.96 GST I – 28% Total Tax (in Rs.) J=D+H or I 44.77 86.8 Total Tax in terms of perce
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the Applicant No. 1 and during the hearing she agreed with the report submitted by the DGAP. 6. We have carefully examined the DGAP s report and the documents placed on record and find that the following issues are required to be settled in the present proceedings as per the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act:- I. Whether there was reduction in the rate of tax on the product in question w.e.f. 01.07.2017 or 14.11.2017? ll. Whether any benefit of reduction in the rate of tax was to be passed on? III. Whether the benefit of reduction in tax was passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices? 7. It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01-07-2017, as could be seen from the table given above. There is also no increase in the per unit base price (excluding tax) of the above product and therefore the allegation of profiteering is not established. 8. Though the rate of tax
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =