Case Law Details
Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Director General Anti-Profiteering (NAA)
On perusal of the facts of the case and the details provided in the table given above in para 4 it is apparent that there was no reduction of tax with the introduction of GST. The DGAP on examining various facts has categorically mentioned that the invoices very clearly show that no VAT was levied and CST was also exempted prior to 01.07.2017. In fact the rate of tax has increased from Central Excise Duty 13.97 % to GST 28% w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Therefore, the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as there has been no reduction in the rate of tax. As such, we do not find any merit in the application filed by the above Applicants and the same is therefore dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY (NAA)
1. The brief facts of the case are that The Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering 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 `Caribbean Wood Tile’ (here-in referred to as the product) by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax at the time of implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Thus, it was alleged that the Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. In this regard, Kerala State Screening Committee had relied on two invoices issued by the Respondent, one was dated 27.04.2017 (Pre-GST) and the other was dated 25.08.2017 (Post-GST).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
OFFHAND
The caption, – “Anti-profiteering provisions not apply in absence of reduction in tax rate” does not seem to have duly projected the point of issue/dispute in proper light For a better appreciation – to avoid any possible confusion – a close reading of the narration of the view taken in favour of the supplier should suffice
Any counter view possible ?