Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering. Director General Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Versus M\/s. Asian Granito India Ltd.,
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1401 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 389 (N. A. P. A.)
NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – NAPA
Dated:- 24-12-2018
Case No. 21\/2018
GST
SH. B. N. SHARMA, CHAIRMAN SH. J. C. CHAUHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER, MS. R. BHAGYADEVI, TECHNICAL MEMBER, SH. AMAND SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER
\nSmt. A. Shainamol, Additional Commissioner, SGST, Kerala for the Applicant No. 1.
\nSh. Anwar Ali T. P., Additional Commissioner for the Applicant No. 2.
\nORDER
\n1. The present report dated 27.09.2018, has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. The Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that the Kerala State Screening Committee on An<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n -10 MM & Granure Hard Crema-10 MM Tiles (HSN code 69072100) was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15. 11.2017, vide Notification No. 41\/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 14.11.2017. The DGAP has further stated that on scrutiny of the said two invoices issued by the Respondent, it was revealed that the pre & post GST rate reduction sale details and discounted base prices (excluding GST) of the said products were as follows:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n passed on or not to the recipient as provided under Section 171 of the CGST Act. From the invoices referred above, it is evident that the base prices of both the products had remained same. It is also observed from the Annexure-6 attached with the Kerala Screening Committee's report that sale price of these products was reduced from Rs. 1037.52 (pre-GST revision) to Rs. 840.68 (post-GST revision) when the GST rate on the above items was revised from 28% to 18%. Thus it is clear that the base prices have not changed and accordingly the selling prices of the products have been reduced. This fact has also not been disputed by the representative of the Applicant No. 1. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering. Director General Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Versus M\/s. Asian Granito India Ltd.,GST2018 (12) TMI 1401 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 389 (N. A. P. A.)NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – NAPADated:- 24-12-2018Case No. 21\/2018 GSTSH. B. N. SHARMA, CHAIRMAN SH. J. … Continue reading “Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering. Director General Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Versus M\/s. Asian Granito India Ltd.,”<\/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-15711","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15711","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=15711"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15711\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nSl.No.
\nPre-revision (before 15.11.2017)
\nPost-revision (after 15.11.2017)
\nDifference in Price (in Rs.)
\n
\nInvoice No.\/Date
\nTax Rate
\nPrice per Box (in Rs.)
\nInvoice No.\/Date
\nTax Rate
\nPrice per Box (in Rs.)
\n
\n1.
\n1101171B\/G01063 dated 30.08.2017
\n28%
\n743.95\/-
\n110\/1716\/G02733 dated 28.11.2017
\n18%
\n743.95\/-
\n–
\n2.
\n1110\/1716\/G01063 dated 28.11.2017
\n28%
\n650.93\/-
\n1110\/1716\/G02733 dated 28.11.2017
\n18%
\n650.92\/-
\n-0.01\/-
\n4. The DGAP has further stated that the aforementioned supporting invoices show that the Respondent did not increase the per un<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case that the Respondent has duly passed on the benefit of reduction in the tax rate by keeping the base price constant thus reducing the selling price of the products in question. Therefore the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n