Case Law Details
Sh. Rahul Sharma Vs. M/s H P India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
The allegation of the Applicant was that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of rate reduction for the product ‘Computer Monitor of 19.5 inch’ w.e.f. 01.01.2019. We find that there was no rate reduction in tax on the product “Computer Monitor of 19.5 inch” as has been alleged by the Applicant. We also find that the rate reduction from 28% to 18% vide Notification No. 24/2018 w.e.f. 01.01.2019 was only effective in the case of “Computer Monitors of size ranging between 20 inches to 32 inches” which is entirely different from the product in respect of which the above Applicant has alleged profiteering. The provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 can be invoked only in cases where there was a reduction in the rate of tax or where the additional benefit of ITC was made available to the Respondent, that needed to be passed on to the recipients. Apparently in this case, the only allegation is that the benefit of rate reduction has not been passed on to the above Applicant by the Respondent. However as per the facts mentioned above the allegation made by the Applicant is not correct since there was no reduction in the rate of tax during the relevant period (between December 2018 to March 2019) on the “Computer Monitor of 19.5 inch”. We also find that the Applicant has alleged profiteering by the Respondent during the period of January 2019 whereas no such rate reduction has been affected on the said product after 22.07 2017. In view of the above discussions it has been found that the allegation of the Applicant No. 1 is not sustainable hence it stands dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY
1. The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 15 02 2019 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of “HP V202b 19.5 inch Computer Monitor” (hereinafter referred to as the product) supplied by him. The Applicant No. 1 alleged that the Respondent had maintained the same selling price of Rs. 6,869/- for the product when the GST rate was reduced from 28 % to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019, vide Notification 24/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2018 and did not pass on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the price. Along with his application, the Applicant No. 1 had submitted copies of screen shots captured from the website “www. hpshopping. in”.
2. The above reference was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering in its meeting and vide its minutes dated 11.03.2019 it had forwarded the same to the DGAP to conduct a detailed investigation in order to examine the allegation made by the above Applicant.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
