9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 91 - NAPA - GSTProfiteering - supply of Duracell Battery AA/6 - allegation that benefit of reduction in GST rate was not passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the price - contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The Respondent did not reduce the selling price of the products when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 and hence. the benefit of reduction in GST rate was not passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the prices, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he has contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - the Respondent has acted in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, and has not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to his recipients by commensurate reduction in the prices. Accordingly, the profiteered amount is determined as ₹ 1,57,200/- as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules 2017. The Respondent is therefore directed to reduce the prices of his products as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, keeping in view the reduction in the rate of tax so that the benefit is passed on to the recipients. Accordingly, the Respondent is required to deposit the profiteered amount of ₹ 1,57,200/- along with the interest to be calculated @ 18% from the date when the above amount was collected by him from the recipients till the above amount is deposited in terms of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the CGST Rules, 2017. As per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 this order was required to be passed within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the Report furnished by the DGAP under Rule 129 (6) of the above Rules - This order is being passed today in terms of the Notification No. 55/2020-Central Tax dated 27.06.2020 issued by the Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Indirect Taxes Customs under Section 168 A of the CGST Act, 2017.
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged profiteering by the Respondent due to non-reduction of selling price post-GST rate reduction. 2. Investigation and findings by the Director-General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP). 3. Determination of profiteered amount. 4. Compliance and payment by the Respondent. 5. Imposition of penalty. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Profiteering: An application was filed by Applicant No. 1 alleging that the Respondent did not reduce the selling price of "Duracell Battery AA/6" despite a reduction in GST rate from 28% to 18% effective from 15.11.2017. The price remained the same, violating Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates passing on the benefit of tax reduction to recipients. 2. Investigation and Findings by DGAP: The DGAP conducted a detailed investigation and issued a Notice to the Respondent under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The investigation covered the period from 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019. The Respondent submitted various documents but did not make any specific contentions regarding the alleged profiteering. 3. Determination of Profiteered Amount: The DGAP analyzed the supply details and observed that the Respondent increased the base prices of most products despite the tax rate reduction. For instance, the average base price of "DURA-9V/1" pre-GST rate reduction was ?150.25, and post-reduction, the commensurate selling price should have been ?177.29. However, the actual selling price was ?188.46, indicating profiteering of ?22.34 on this item. The total profiteered amount across various items was determined to be ?1,57,200. 4. Compliance and Payment by the Respondent: The Respondent accepted the profiteered amount and requested the procedure for payment. Subsequently, the Respondent paid ?95,585 each to the Consumer Affairs Department, Rajasthan, and the Central Consumer Welfare Fund. The DGAP verified these payments and confirmed their receipt. 5. Imposition of Penalty: Since the Respondent paid the entire profiteered amount along with interest of ?39,969 at 18%, they were not liable for a penalty under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017. Conclusion: The Respondent was found in contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, for not reducing prices commensurate with the GST rate reduction. The total profiteered amount was ?1,57,200, which was duly paid along with interest. Due to timely compliance, no penalty was imposed. The order was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic but was passed in accordance with the relevant notifications.
|
