Case Law Details
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s VTWO Ventures (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
We have carefully considered the Report of the DGAP contention of the Applicant No. 1 and the submissions made by the Respondent as also the documents placed on record to consider whether there was any reduction in the rate of tax in the relevant period and whether the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax was passed on to the recipients as required under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
From the facts of the case and the records placed before us, we find it evident that the Respondent had increased the base prices of his products w.e.f. 15.11.2017 despite reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18%. The DGAP in his Report has also revealed that the amount profiteered by the Respondent in respect of supplies of the products during the period 15.11.2017 to 31.08.2018 is Rs. 18,887/-, the details of which have already been tabulated in para 7 above. Therefore we find that the Respondent has acted in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 in as much as he did not pass on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to his recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the prices.
It is also established from the above facts that the Respondent had issued incorrect invoices while selling the above products to his recipients as he had incorrectly shown the base prices and had also compelled them to pay additional GST on the increased prices through the incorrect tax invoices which would have otherwise resulted in further benefit to the recipients. It is also established from the record that the Respondent has deliberately and consciously acted in contravention of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 by issuing incorrect invoices which is an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the above Act and hence he is liable for imposition of penalty under the above Section read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017. In the interest of natural justice before imposition of penalty a notice be issued to him asking him to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
To ADD; The KEY words (concepts) – ‘Deliberate’ and ‘incorrect’ chosen for the headline, are indisputably, too dicey and subjective ; to be judged rightly on the touchstone of logic or legitimacy, so as to accord / be in perfect line with the fundamental principles of ‘JurisPRUDENCE’ – uniformly / with no aberration in all such matters of self-centric dispute – TRUE or false ?!
(FONT to underscore the spirit behind, not the letter/word)
With sharp focus on ‘çnsumerism’ (:
On the first blush, requiring to be a made a spl. note of are,-
1) the stance taken and the explanations given by the OP, as recorded in para.4; and
2) the observations of the APA as recorded in paras 15 and 16.
Finally, the matter has been directed vide para 17 to be investigated and caling for a finding whether or not the OP has made an excessive profit , by not reducing the price consequent upon the reduction in the GST Rate from.. % to ..%.
Without going into the intricacies of the peculiar nature of the product in question, which attracts the GST levy on a transaction-wise / one time basis, a point of grave doubt that instantly arises in one’s mind is THIS:
With the rate of levy having been officially and admittedly reduced, should that not have been strictly applied and price been reduced and charged as a matter of no dispute.
In other words,is ithat all of any relevance, or is there any ratiionale in requiring to go into the questiion whether or not, by not charging the reduced price the OP has made an excessive profit.
On the premise that the forgoing line of thinking cannot rightly be regarded to be founded on faulty logic, (open to correction, if wrong and no merits) – this is an instance for the knowldgeable GST law Experts , with sufficient exposure and incisive experience, to take a serious call; and worth while for sparing and sharing independently, an impartial view in the matter, with only focus on the larger consumers’ interests.
courtesy