ANTI-PROFITEERING IN GST: CONSTRUCTIVE EVIDENCE MUST
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 23-11-2018<\/p>\n
Section 171 of GST law is the most powerful provision to check excessive profiteering resorted to by businesses owing to tax efficiency accruing because of goods and services tax (GST). The National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) entrusted with disposing of such cases including implementation of provision and monitoring has already decided over a dozen of anti-profiteering complaints and ruled, both for and against complaints.
\nThe law of positive evidence has been applied by NAA in all such cases and where there was no evidence of anti-profiteering stance or it could not be proved in view of lack of evidence, such complaints were decided in favour of business entity or against the complainant. In other words, complainant has to provide substantial evidence to prove that the accused business entity has indulged in anti-profiteering or the bus<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n conducted by Director General Anti-profiteering against could not establish profiteering for want of credible evidence of profiteering against a specific supplier of KFC and accordingly no violation of provisions of section 171 could be established. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ions of section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the complaint being non maintainable, was dismissed. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ANTI-PROFITEERING IN GST: CONSTRUCTIVE EVIDENCE MUSTBy: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal Goods and Services Tax – GSTDated:- 23-11-2018 Section 171 of GST law is the most powerful provision to check excessive profiteering resorted to by businesses owing to tax efficiency accruing because of goods and services tax (GST). The National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) entrusted with disposing … Continue reading “ANTI-PROFITEERING IN GST: CONSTRUCTIVE EVIDENCE MUST”<\/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-15127","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15127","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=15127"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15127\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIt was alleged that company had not passed on the benefit of reduction of tax from 18% to 5% to its customers. He had also alleged that it was supplying him Burger @ ₹ 32\/- per unit and after adding 18% GST, he was paying about ₹ 40\/- per unit before the tax was reduced w.e.f. 15.11.2017, whereas he was purchasing the above product @ ₹ 42\/- per unit after the reduction in the rate of tax and therefore, the company was illegally profiteering by appropriating the amount of reduction of tax by fleecing the poor customers as he was denying them the benefit of reduction and therefore action should be taken against him.
\nHowever, on being asked by DGAP to provide the pre and post GST invoices of the products sold and other det<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nAmway India Case
\nIn another complaint in the matter of Amway India, i.e. DGAP v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., National Anti-profiteering Authority vide its Order dated 29th October, 2018 and reported in 2018 (10) TMI 1614 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY has come to the conclusion that application filed by applicant requesting for action against Amway for alleged violation of provisions of section 171 on ground that it had not passed on benefit of reduction in GST rates from 28 per cent to 18 per cent on selected items to its customers\/Amway Business Owners, would not be maintainable as there was no specific evidence of profiteering against respondent. In absence of description of any product, name of supplier and any specific evidence of profiteering by respondent no further investigation could be conducted. Hence, no violation of provisions of section 171 had been found.\n<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n