Case Law Details
Case Name : Shri Rahul Sharma Vs M/s Gyan Books Pvt Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
National Anti-Profiteering Authority
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Shri Rahul Sharma Vs M/s Gyan Books Pvt Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
In the present case, we observe that that the book “Ragas in Hindustani Music: Conceptual Aspects (without cassette)” deals with various conceptual aspects and various affinities in Ragas and analysis thereof. We observe that the invoices dated 24.09.2018 and 09.01.2019, issued by the Respondent in respect of supply of the said book “Ragas in Hindustani Music: Conceptual Aspects (without cassette)” to
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
RIDER
Section 171 of the CGST Act READS:
(1). “ANY REDUCTION IN RATE OF TAX on any supply of goods or services or THE BENEFIT OF INPUT TAX CREDIT shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices.”
FONT< To focus on the fact that the provision clearly covers (as is intended by the conjunction ‘or’) two different criteria / situations for the provision to apply; ‘ANY REDUCTION IN RATE OF TAX’ and ‘THE BENEFIT OF INPUT TAX CREDIT’.
Now, Turning to the raging controversies, – in own view seemingly unfounded by logic or sound reasoning- those are, it appears, attributable to the fact of reading and construing the intent behind by failing to appreciate the material legal significance of the above stated fact – Any eminent experts' thoughts?!
OFFHAND
The reported case, as is readily to be noted, makes for a bizarre instance of its kind; in that, right from the stage of initiation and through the entire proceedings neither of the two applicants (for that matter, even the Standing Committee) have cared to mindfully consider why at all the Respondent could be validly proceeded against on the ground of excess ‘profiteering’ .
That clearly goes to illustrate the underlying fact of life / the obtaining field reality – namely, for perpetration and perpetuation of such unsavory litigation on a ‘non-issue’ of the kind herein, ‘credit’ (or blame?) has to go to the so called ‘morons’ at large; notwithstanding that is a class to be preserved/ protected still remains to be investigated and decided upon by ‘our pro bono team’ (thus quipped in a famous cartoon) !