Case Law Details
Shri Anil Sharma Vs Printing Machine Solutions (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
This Report dated 25.10.2019 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that an application dated 29.09.2017 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, by the Applicant No. 1, alleging profiteering in respect of the supply of a “Used Heidelberg Speed Master Offset Press with complete tools and accessories (Model SM 74-5+LX, Year of manufacture 1997)” by the Respondent.
The DGAP also submitted that the Applicant had purchased an imported “Used Heidelberg Offset Press SM 74-5 +LX, Year 1997 with complete tools and accessories” from the Respondent for which the Respondent had quoted price of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (plus local Sales Tax, if applicable) as per the proforma Invoice No. Press/DA/PMS/060517 dated 06.05.2017. He was, however, billed for an amount of Rs. 1,65,20,0001- as per tax invoice No. 01 dated 29.07.2017, which included GST @ 18% on Rs. 1,40,00,000/-. The above Applicant also alleged that after the implementation of the GST, various existing taxes like VAT, CST, CVD, SAD etc. had been subsumed in the GST but the Respondent charged 18% GST on Rs. 1,40,00,000/- which was the quoted price inclusive of erstwhile taxes like CVD and SPL CVD etc. and did not pass on the benefit of ITC to him by way of commensurate reduction in price in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The DGAP Submitted that the aforesaid application was examined by the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 04.2019, the minutes of which were received in the office of the DGAP on 02.05.2019, whereby it was decided to refer the same, to conduct a detailed investigation in the matter, in terms of Rule 129 of the Rules.
The DGAP further submitted that on receipt of the aforesaid reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering on 02.05.2019, a Notice under Rule 129(3) of the Rules was issued by the him on 16.05.2019, calling upon the Respondent to submit his reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of input tax credit, had not been passed on to his recipients by way of commensurate reduction in price and if so, to suo-moto determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply to the Notice as well as furnish all documents in support of his reply. Further, vide the said Notice, the Respondent was also allowed to inspect the non-confidential evidences/ information which formed the basis of the said Notice, during the period 22.05.2019 to 24.05.2019 which the Respondent did not avail of. The Applicant No. 1 was also offered an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidences/ documents submitted by the Respondent on either on 22.10.2018 or 23.10.2019 which the Applicant availed on 23.10.2018. The period covered by the current investigation was from 01.07.2017 to 30.04.2019.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
