9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 737 - NAPA - GSTProfiteering - supply of Trousers - benefit of reduction in the rate of tax not passed on - contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 - Held 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 - Application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Allegation of profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of "Trousers" post-GST implementation. 2. Examination of the reduction in the rate of tax and application of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Analysis: 1. The case involved an allegation of profiteering by the Respondent in not passing on the benefit of tax rate reduction post-GST implementation on the supply of "Trousers." The Kerala State Screening Committee referred the case to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, citing two invoices issued by the Respondent pre-GST and post-GST, alleging profiteering in contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. The Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) conducted a detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The DGAP's report highlighted that the tax rate on the product remained the same pre-GST and post-GST, along with the base prices. The Standing Committee referred the case to DGAP for further investigations under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3. The DGAP's report confirmed that the tax rate and base prices for the product remained unchanged post-GST implementation. The Authority considered the report and the absence of any complainant or applicant in the case. Despite opportunities given to the Kerala Screening Committee to present the case, no appearance was made. Additional information from the State Tax Department of Kerala also did not provide further details on the manufacturer. 4. The Authority deliberated on the application of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates passing on any reduction in the rate of tax to the recipient. After careful consideration, it was concluded that there was no reduction in the tax rate post-GST implementation, and the anti-profiteering provisions under Section 171 were not applicable. As there was no increase in the per unit base price of the product, the allegation of profiteering was deemed unsustainable. 5. In light of the above findings, the application filed by the Applicants was dismissed, and the order was to be communicated to both the Applicants and the Respondent. The case file was to be closed upon completion of the process. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with anti-profiteering regulations and the necessity to pass on any tax benefits to consumers as per the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017.
|
