9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance amount of tax in cash as is evident from the perusal of the table prepared by the DGSG. It is also apparent from the returns filed by the respondent for the months of September, 2017, October, 2017 and November, 2017 that the ITC available to him as a percentage of the total value of taxable supplies was between 2.69% to 3% whereas the GST on the outward supply of his product was 5% which was not sufficient to discharge his tax liability. Moreover in this case the rate of tax has been increased from 0% to 5% instead of reduction in the same. Therefore, there appears to be no reason for treating the price fixed by the Respondent as violation of the provisions of the Anti-Profiteering clause. Due to the imposition of the GST on the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.2017, due to which input tax credit (ITC) had become available to the above Respondent. He had also reported that whether the benefit of ITC had been passed on to the consumers, had to be examined in case there was any net benefit of ITC to the Respondent after the GST liability on the outward taxable supplies had been discharged by him and if the ITC was available with him it was to be passed on to the consumers in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. He had further reported that the "India Gate" brand name was not registered by the Respondent and hence he was not paying GST on the outward supply of Basmati Rice and this product had been made taxable vide Notification No. 28/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure-ll) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s sitting held on 20.03.2018 and it was decided to hear the Applicant as well as the Respondent on 11.04.2018. Sh. Anoop Aggarwal General Manager and Ms. Medini Aggarwal appeared for the Respondent on the given date however the Applicant did not put an appearance. After hearing the representatives of Respondent they were directed to supply further clarifications which were submitted by them on 17.04.2018 and it was contended that the GST rate on outward supply of their product was 5% and the ITC available to discharge the GST liability was not sufficient and the balance amount of GST was paid by the Respondent in cash therefore, there was no benefit of ITC which could be passed on to the consumers. They had further submitted that the prices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent was not liable for tax before the implementation of the GST and after coming into force of the CGST Act, 2017 it was levied GST @ 5% w.e.f. 22.09.2017. The Respondent was also made eligible to avail !TC w.e.f. the above date. However, the ITC claimed by the Respondent was not sufficient to meet his output tax liability and he had to pay the balance amount of tax in cash as is evident from the perusal of the table prepared by the DGSG. It is also apparent from the returns filed by the respondent for the months of September, 2017, October, 2017 and November, 2017 that the ITC available to him as a percentage of the total value of taxable supplies was between 2.69% to 3% whereas the GST on the outward supply of his product was 5% which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
