Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering., Director General Anti-profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Versus M\/s Emke Silks & Garments Pvt. Ltd.
GST
2019 (2) TMI 737 – THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 286 (N. A. P. A.)
THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – NAPA
Dated:- 11-2-2019
09\/2019
GST
Sh. B. N. Sharma, Chairman, Sh. J. C. Chauhan, Technical Member And Ms. R. Bhagyadevi, Technical Member
\nFor the Applicant No. 1 : None
\nFor the Applicant No. 2 : Sh. Anwar Ali T.P., Additional Commissioner, DG Anti-Profiteeing
\nORDER
\n1. The present report dated 08.11.2018 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 that the Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering, vide the minutes of its meeting held on 08.05.2018 had referred the<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n n No. 30\/2004-CE dated 09.072004 and attracted only VAT @ 5%. After implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the tax on the above product was fixed @ 5%. The pre-GST & the post-GST sale invoice-wise details of the applicable tax rates and the base prices (excluding VAT or GST) of the said product supplied by the Respondent are mentioned in the table below:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Act shows that it provides as under:- = = = = = = = =<\/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 Emke Silks & Garments Pvt. Ltd.GST2019 (2) TMI 737 – THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 286 (N. A. P. A.)THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – NAPADated:- 11-2-201909\/2019 GSTSh. B. N. Sharma, Chairman, … Continue reading “Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering., Director General Anti-profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Versus M\/s Emke Silks & Garments Pvt. 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-16732","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16732","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=16732"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16732\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16732"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16732"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16732"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nS. No.
\nDescription of the Product
\nPre-GST
\nPost-GST
\n
\n
\nBase Price (Rs.)
\nTax Rate (VAT)
\nTax Amount (Rs.)
\nTotal Selling Price (Rs.)
\nBase Price (Rs.)
\nTax Rate (VAT)
\nTax Amount (Rs.)
\nTotal Selling Price (Rs.)
\n1.
\n“”Trousers”
\n847.62
\n5%
\n42.38
\n890
\n847.62
\n5%
\n42.38
\n890
\n4. The DGAP has submitted in its report that the rate of tax on the product had remained the same in the pre-GST and the post- GST era. Moreover, the pre-GST and post-GST base prices (excluding tax) had also remained the same. Therefore, the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have not been contravened and the allegation <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n(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.”
\n9. It is clear to us from the perusal of the facts of the case and the evidence on record 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. Also, there is no increase in the per unit base price (excluding tax) of the above product and therefore the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. As such, we do not find any merit in the application filed by the above Applicants and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
\n10. A copy of this order be sent to both the Applicants and the Respondent free of cost. File of the case be consigned after completion.
Case laws, Decisi<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n