NAA RULING ON SUPPLY OF LIFT : NO ANTI-PROFITEERING CHARGE PROVED
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 15-6-2018<\/p>\n
Undue anti-profiteering being resorted to by businesses and trade in GST regime are yet to be proved by the customers or victimized complainants and so also affirmed by and action taken against them by the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) in India. The third order of NAA on the complaint M\/s Abel Space Solution LLP, New Delhi against M\/s Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai has been pronounced in favour of supplier. Thus all three NAA order pronounced so far have gone in favour of supplier of goods or services \/ companies and against the complainants.
\nThe NAA order have so far been in favour of companies, viz,
\nOrder No.
\nDate of Order
\nComplaint Against
\nBusiness Activity
\n1.
\n27.03.2018
\nVrandavaneshwree Automotive Pvt. Ltd, Bareilly [ 2018 (4) TMI 1377 – THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY ]
\nCar Dealer
\n2.
\n04.05.201<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n fore the NAA order, the complainant had requested for withdrawal of application, citing inadequate understanding of GST provisions at the time of filing the complaint in September, 2017. But the authority considered the investigative report of the Directorate General of Safeguard (DGS) before ordering the dismissal of complaint. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e provisions of Finance Act, 1994. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the point of taxation was to be construed as the date of receipt of such advance. The installation of elevator was completed in the GST regime, and hence the point for levy of tax for supply of material fell under the GST regime and accordingly, two more invoices were issued on 27.07.2017 wherein the applicable GST was correctly charged. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" NAA RULING ON SUPPLY OF LIFT : NO ANTI-PROFITEERING CHARGE PROVEDBy: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal Goods and Services Tax – GSTDated:- 15-6-2018 Undue anti-profiteering being resorted to by businesses and trade in GST regime are yet to be proved by the customers or victimized complainants and so also affirmed by and action taken against them … Continue reading “NAA RULING ON SUPPLY OF LIFT : NO ANTI-PROFITEERING CHARGE PROVED”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12218","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12218"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12218\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe NAA ruled that in respect of the two invoices dated July 27, 2017, as the installation of the second lift had been completed after coming into force of the CGST Act, 2017, he was liable to be charged GST at the rate prevalent on July 27, 2017.
\nCase Facts
\nCase No.
\n4\/2018
\nComplainant
\nAbel Space Solution LLP, New Delhi
\nSupplier of Goods
\nSchindler India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
\nDate of Application
\n20.09.2017
\nDate of forwarding to DGSG by Standing Committee
\n15.02.2018
\nReport of DGSG
\n16.04.2018
\nDate of Institution of case
\n17.04.2018
\nDate of NAA order
\n31.05.2018
\nOrder
\nBy 3 Members Bench (including Chairman, NAA)
\nIn the instant case two lifts were ord<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nAccording to factual matrix, applicant filed the application under Rule 123 of the CGST Rules, 2017 to the Standing Committee alleging that company had not charged GST on the base price of the lift ordered by him from the company, after excluding the pre-GST Excise Duty on the material component and thus he had been charged tax twice on the same material. This was referred by the Standing Committee to DGSG for further investigations.
\nThe complaint had subsequently withdrawn his complaint vide letter dated 28.03.2018 sent to DGSG and he also did not availed the opportunity of being heard before NAA. The reason cited for withdrawal was that he was not fully aware of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 when he had filed his application on 20.09.2017 and since the issues pertaining to case had been further clarified subsequently, his application should be treated to have been withdrawn.
\nAccording to law, the supply and installation of lift amounted to<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe company claimed that the Excise Duty benefit could only be given if the material was dispatched on or after 01.07.2017 and since all the material was delivered before 30.06.2017 and hence, he was not in a position to pass such benefit to the Applicant.
\nThe NAA, therefore, finally ordered that there is no substance in the claim made by the applicant and therefore, the Authority accepted the report dated 16-04-2017 filed by the DGSG under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The proceedings were dropped as no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 has been established.
\nIt is understood that NAA has under its sleeve over<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n