2019 (3) TMI 370 – THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – TMI – Profiteering – Ceramic Vitrified Tiles – benefit in the reduction of rate of tax not passed on – contravention of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 – N/N. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 – Held that:- It is clear that the base price of the product per box was ₹ 232.50 prior to 15.11.2017 and had remained the same even after GST rate reduction w.e.f. 15.11.2017. Therefore, the benefit of rate reduction appears to have been passed on. This Authority agrees with the DGAP's Report dated 28.09.2018 and accordingly, holds that the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable.
–
The provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, have not been contravened and there is no merit in the application forwarded by the Applicant No. 1 – application dismissed. – 13/2019 Dated:- 1-3-2019 – Sh. B. N. Sharma, Chairman, Sh. J. C. Chauhan, Technical Member, Ms. R. Bhagyadevi, Technical Member And Sh. Amand S
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the pre-GST rate reduction period and invoice no. 0860 dated 15.12.2017 issued in the post-GST era. 2. The above application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering and was referred to the DGAP vide minutes of its meeting dated 02.07.2018 for detailed investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3. The present Report dated 28.09.2018 has been received from the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 4. The DGAP in his Report has stated that vide Notification No. 41/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 the GST rate on the product "Ceramic Vitrified Tiles" Nano Series PRE-I (HSN Code 69072100) was reduced to 18% from the existing rate of 28% w.e.f 15.11.2017. Based on scrutiny of the two invoices issued by the Respondent, the pre & post GST rate reduction sale invoice-wise details of the said product are furnished in the table below by the DGAP:- Table Desc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ar before the Authority on 18.10.2018 however the hearing was postponed to 31.10.2018. Smt. Shainamol, Additional Commissioner, SGST, Kerala appeared on behalf of the Applicant No. 1 and the DGAP was represented by Sh. Anwar Ali, Additional Commissioner. 7. The Authority during the course of the hearing had found that the above Report had not given any findings in respect of the price of the wholesaler, which was the basis for forwarding the case by the Applicant No. 1 to the Standing Committee. Therefore, the Authority vide its' order dated 12.12.2018 passed under Rule 133 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, had directed the DGAP to investigate the above issue and send his Report accordingly. 8. The DGAP has submitted his Report on 24.12.2018 under Rule 133 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and has stated that the present case was covered by Annexure-6 of the minutes of the meeting held by the Applicant No. 1, alleging profiteering by the manufacturer/wholesalers by the Respondent in pursuant
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =