Case Law Details
Kerala State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Somany Ceramics Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
In this case there has been reduction in the rate of tax on Ceramics Glazed Wal Tiles, Printex Crema, PRM 300×600 MM HSN Code 69072300′ from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 as per the Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017. It is also revealed from the record that the Respondent had not increased the discounted per M2price of the above product which had remained Rs. 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. Hence, 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. As such, we do not find any merit in the application filed by the above Applicants and the same is accordingly dismissed.
ULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY
1. The present Report dated 26.09.2018 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 vide the minutes of its meeting held on 08.05.2018 had referred the present case to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, alleging profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of ‘Ceramics Glazed Wal Tiles, Printex Crema, PRM 300×600 MM HSN Code 69072300’, (here-in referred to as the product) by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax w.e.f. 15.11.2017, granted vide Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 by the Central as well as the State Governments. Thus, it was alleged that the Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. In this regard, the above Applicant had relied on two invoices issued by the Respondent, one dated 03.08.2017 (Pre-GST rate reduction) and the other dated 30.11.2017 (Post-GST rate reduction).
2. The above reference was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering and was further referred to the DGAP vide minutes of its meeting dated 02.07.2018 for detailed investigations under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
