9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Respondent had not increased the discounted per M2 price of the above product which had remained ₹ 374.74/- before and after the tax reduction, as was evident from both the invoices issued by him before and after the tax reduction and therefore, the benefit of tax reduction has duly been passed on to the customers by the Respondent. The allegation of profiteering is not established against the Respondent in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as there has been no change in the base price of the product after reduction in the GST rate w.e.f. 15.11.2017 - application dismissed - decided against petitioner. - 19/2019 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2019 - Sh. B. N. Sharma, Chairman, Sh. J. C. Chauhan, Technical Member, Ms. R. Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 02.07.2018 for detailed investigations under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3. The DGAP has stated in his Report dated 26.09.2018 that on scrutiny of the two invoices issued by the Respondent, received from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering along with the reference, it was found that the GST rate on the product was reduced to 18% from the existing rate of 28% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 vide Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017. He has also submitted the pre post GST rate reduction sale invoice-wise details of the applicable tax rate and the discounted price of the above product as per the table below:- Sr. No. Description of Product Pre-revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egation of profiteering against the Respondent was not sustainable. He has further stated that there was no change in the per unit taxable amount excluding GST of the product in the post-GST rate reduction period as compared to the pre-GST rate reduction period and thus, the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 relating to profiteering, were not contravened in the present case. 5. The above Report was considered by the Authority in its meeting held on 03.10.2018 and it was decided that since there was no complainant in this case, the Applicant No. 1 be asked to appear before the Authority on 18.10.2018. Since, no one appeared for the hearing on 18.10.2018, the Authority had decided to ask the above Applicant to appear befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 03.08.2017 2917222617 dated 30.11.2017 8. The DGAP has further stated that he had conducted the investigation on the same invoices on which the investigation was conducted by the Applicant No. 1 and hence there was no difference in the data relied upon by both the Applicants. 9. We have carefully examined the report of the DGAP and the docu ents placed on record and find that the issues which need consideration were as to whether there was reduction in the rate of tax and whether the provisions of section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 were attracted in the present case. Perusal of Section 171 of the CGST Act shows that it provides as under:- (1). Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
