2019 (2) TMI 739 – THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – TMI – Profiteering – supply of “Socks” – benefit of reduction in the rate of tax not passed on – contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – Held that:- There was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and hence the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted – application dismissed. – 11/2019 Dated:- 11-2-2019 – Sh. B. N. Sharma, Chairman, Sh. J. C. Chauhan, Technical Member And Ms. R. Bhagyadevi, Technical Member For the Applicant No. 1 : None For the Applicant No. 2 : Sh. Anwar Ali T.P., Additional Commissioner, DG Anti-Profiteeing ORDER 1. The present report dated 08.11.2013 has been received from the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3. The DGAP has stated in his report dated 08. Il .2018 that the "Socks" (Jockey Socks 7052 FS ASSTD) were exempted from Central Excise Duty, vide Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 and attracted only VAT @ 5%. After implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the tax rate of the above product was fixed @ 5%. The pre-GST & the post-GST sale invoice-wise details of the applicable tax rate and the base prices (excluding VAT or GST) of the said product supplied by the Respondent are mentioned in the table below:- Table S. No. Description of the Product Pre-GST (Invoice No. 19 dt. 01.04.2017) Post-GST (Invoice no. GB 1608 dt 09.10.2017) Base Price (Rs.) Tax Rate (VAT) Tax Amount (Rs.) Total Selling Price (Rs.) Base Price (Rs.) Tax Rate (VAT) Tax Amount (Rs.) Total Selling Price (Rs.) 1. Socks (Jockey Socks 7052 FS ASSTD) 94.29 5% 4.71 99 94.29 5% 4.72 99.01 Tax Pre-GST (%) 5% Tax Post-GST (%) 5% 4 The DGAP has submitted in his report that
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e of profiteering. 7. We have carefully considered the Report of the DGAP and the documents placed on record and find that the only issue that needs to be dwelled upon is as to whether there was a case of reduction in the rate of tax and whether the provisions of section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 are attracted in the case. 8. Perusal of Section 171 of the CGST Act shows that it provides as under:- (1). "Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices." It is clear 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 and hence we find that the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted and therefore we do not find any merit in the application filed by the above Applicants and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 10. A copy of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =