Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Goods and Services Tax

Non reduction in price despite tax reduction is profiteering: NAA

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2019 taxguru.in 834
Case Name
Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Ms TTK Prestige Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Ms TTK Prestige Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

It has been revealed that the Central Govt. vide Notification No. 41/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 had reduced the rate of GST from 28% to 18% in respect of the above product with effect from 15.11.2017, the benefit of which was required to be passed on to the recipients by the Respondent as per the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Respondent’s submissions that the price of the product was not increased at the time of introduction of GST when the rate of tax was increased to 28% and hence the question of reducing the prices when the rate of tax was decreased from 28% to 18% does not arise is legally not sustainable in as much as Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 is very clear that the benefit of reduction in tax has to be necessarily passed on to the recipient by commensurately reducing the prices. Secondly the argument that the pre GST prices and the post reduction prices should have been compared will also not hold good as the DGAP has rightly taken into consideration the prices before the rate reduction and the prices after the reduction of tax rates to analyse and estimate the extent of benefit passed on to the recipient.

Respondent had issued incorrect invoices while selling all the above product to his customers as he had not correctly shown the basic price which he should have legally charged from them. The Respondent had a compelled them to pay additional GST on the increased price through the incorrect tax invoices which would have otherwise resulted in further benefit to the customers which he had failed to pass on. 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. 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, notice may be issued to the Respondent to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on him.

FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING APPELLATE AUTHORITY

1. This Report, dated 05.12.2018, has been received by this Authority from the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 1 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 “Glass Kit Hood Curved Black-90 Cm GHK 900CS Electric Chimney” (here-in referred to as the product) by not passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, vide Notification No. 41/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017. Thus, it was alleged that the Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017. In this regard, the Applicant No. 1 had relied on two invoices issued by the Respondent, one was dated 30.08.2017 (Pre-GST) and the second one was dated 18.12.2017 (Post-GST rate reduction w.e.f. 15.11.2017) as per the details furnished in the table given below:-

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.