2018 (6) TMI 687 - NAPA - GST

Anti-Profiteering - Non-discharge of GST - it has been alleged that Respondent had not charged GST on the base price of the lift ordered by him from the Respondent, after excluding the pre-GST Excise Duty on the material component and thus he had been charged tax twice on the same material - Held that - It is clear from the perusal of the record that the Applicant had paid advance for purchase of this lift and he was charged the Service Tax which was leviable at the time of issue of the invoice on 28-06-2017, which he has not disputed and which is also correct as the Applicant was liable for payment of Service Tax under the then applicable provisions of Finance Act, 1994 - However in respect of the two invoices dated 27-07-2017 as the installation of the second lift had been completed after coming in to force of the CGST Act, 2017, he was liable to be charged GST at the rate which was prevalent on 27-07-2017. There is no substance in the claim made by the Applicant and therefore, this Authority accepts the report dated 16-04-2017 filed by the DGSG under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and hereby orders dropping of the present proceedings as no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 has been established.

Summary

Issues: Allegation of not charging GST on the base price of a lift, double taxation claim, applicability of CGST Act, 2017 provisions, withdrawal of application.

Allegation of not charging GST on the base price of a lift:
The case involved an allegation that the Respondent did not charge GST on the base price of a lift, leading to a claim of double taxation. The Applicant filed an application stating that GST was not levied on the lift ordered, excluding pre-GST Excise Duty, resulting in dual taxation on the same material. The Standing Committee examined the application and referred it to the DGSG for detailed investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Double taxation claim and applicability of CGST Act, 2017 provisions:
The investigation revealed that the Applicant ordered two lifts, with the first lift invoiced before GST implementation, and the second lift invoiced post-GST. The DGSG found that the Respondent issued multiple invoices for the second lift, with Service Tax charged on one invoice pre-GST and GST charged on subsequent invoices post-GST. The DGSG explained the applicability of tax laws under the Finance Act, 1994, and CGST Act, 2017, regarding the point of taxation and levy of tax under different regimes. The Applicant later admitted his lack of understanding of the CGST Act, 2017 provisions when filing the application, leading to a request for withdrawal.

Withdrawal of application:
The Applicant, through letters to the DGSG and the Authority, requested the withdrawal of the application, citing improved understanding of the CGST Act, 2017 provisions post-application submission. The Authority acknowledged the Applicant's admission of lack of awareness and the subsequent withdrawal request. Based on the facts presented, the Authority accepted the DGSG's report and ordered the dropping of proceedings, as no violation of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 was established. The case was concluded, and all parties were informed accordingly.