9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1614 - NAPA - GSTProfiteering - benefit of reduction in the GST rates not passed to customers - Amway Business Owners (ABOs). - Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 - Held that - The Applicant No. 1 had not supplied details of the products or the invoices vide which he had bought them from the Respondent inspite of repeated requests made by the Applicant No. 2 and therefore, the investigation conducted in the allegation levelled by the Applicant No. 2 against the Respondent could not establish profiteering for want of cogent and reliable evidence and hence no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 has been found in this case - There are no violation of provisions - application dismissed.
Issues: Allegation of profiteering against Respondent based on non-passing of GST rate reduction benefits to customers or ABOs. Lack of evidence provided by Applicant No. 1.
In this case, the Applicant No. 1 lodged a complaint against the Respondent, alleging that the benefit of reduced GST rates from 28% to 18% on selected items was not passed on to customers or Amway Business Owners (ABOs). The Applicant No. 2, in the report, highlighted that despite repeated requests for details such as supplier name, pre-GST and post-GST amounts, and supporting invoices, no response was received from Applicant No. 1. The Respondent, a direct selling company with a significant market presence, argued that no specific evidence of profiteering was provided, and the Applicant No. 2 did not recommend initiating proceedings under Section 171 of the CGST Act due to lack of evidence. Upon reviewing the reports and submissions, the Authority noted the failure of Applicant No. 1 to provide essential details and evidence despite multiple requests. As a result, the investigation could not establish profiteering due to the lack of reliable evidence. Consequently, the Authority concluded that there was no violation of Section 171 of the CGST Act in this case. The application seeking action against the Respondent was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed. The order was to be communicated to both parties, and the case file was to be closed upon completion.
|
