It is also revealed that the reduction in discount doesn’t amount to profiteering as the same was offered from his profit margin by the Respondent and doesn’t not form part of the base price and therefore, the Respondent cannot be held guilty under Section 171 of the Act.
State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Ahuja Radios (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The DGAP after scrutiny of the above two invoices issued by the Respondent has intimated that there was no increase in the per unit price (excluding GST) in respect of both the products mentioned in the above invoices. The base Price per unit […]
It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01-07-2017, as could be seen from the table given above. There is also no increase in the per unit base price (excluding tax) of the above product and therefore the allegation of profiteering is not established.
Kerala State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Janson (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01-07-2017, hence the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax […]
The legal obligation imposed on deqaler cannot be ignored only because he is not the manufacturer who controls the prices, as he is accountable as a supplier to pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction. T
Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering Vs M/s Impact Clothing Co. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have carefully considered the Report of the DGAP and the documents placed on record and find that the only issue that needs to be dwelled upon is as to whether there was a case of reduction in the rate of […]
State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01-07-2017 and that the rate of tax in the Post-GST era has also […]
The rate of tax applicable to the product had increased from 14.5% (12.5% Excise Duty + 2% CST) in pre-GST era to 28% in the post-GST regime. Consequently, the DGAP has stated that as there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the product in the post-GST era as compared to the pre-GST era, the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 were not contravened and hence the allegation of profiteering by the Respondent was not established.
Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering Vs M/s. Asian Granito India Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) We have carefully examined the DGAP’s report and the documents placed on record to examine whether there was any reduction in the GST rate and whether the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax was passed on or not […]
NAA held that Respondent Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has resorted to profiteering being very well aware of the law and the rules which warranted him to pass on the benefit of GST rate reductions. Further he has also consciously and illegally recovered the excess realisation which was due to his RSs as ITC and thereby denied the benefit of tax reductions to the customers.
