Case Law Details
State Leval Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Mak Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case that there was a decrease in the per unit base price of the product ‘BWP Trozan Platinum Ply 19 mm 2.44×1.22′ (excluding GST) of the product in the post-GST era as compared to the pre-GST era when the applicable tax was reduced from 28.81% to 28%, when GST was implemented w.e.f 01.07.2017. Further, the base price of the product was Rs. 1028.07 per square meter in the invoice dated 24.05.2017 and the price of the product was reduced to Rs. 1021.73 in the invoice dated 09.08.2017 after giving a discount of 17.05% on the base price of Rs. 1231/- per square meter (discount of Rs. 90,572/- was given on the total invoice value of Rs. 5,31,125.41 @ 17.05%). Further, the price of the product also remained at Rs. 1021.73 in the invoice dated 02.12.2017 after giving a discount of 17.05% on the base price of Rs. 1231/- per square meter (discount of Rs. 6249/- was given on the total invoice value of Rs. 36,646.87 @ 17.05%) . Thus, it is apparent that the Respondent did not increase the per unit base price (excluding GST) of the product, which was Rs. 1028.07 in the pre-GST era. Further, it was reduced to Rs. 1021.73 in the post-GST era w.e.f 01.07.2017 and it also remained at Rs. 1021.73 when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f 15.11.2017 and hence, there was no increase in the per unit base price. Therefore, the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 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
1. The present Report dated 26.09.2018, has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The facts of the 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 “BWP Trozan Platinum Ply 19 mm 2.44×1.22″ (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 and also when the GST rate was reduced 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 three invoices issued by the Respondent, one was dated 24.05.2017 (Pre-GST), the second one dated 09.08.2017 (Post-GST) and the third one dated 02.12.2017 (Post GST rate reduction w.e.f. 15.11.2017).
2. The above reference was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering and was further referred to the DGAP vide minutes of its meeting dated 02.07.2018 for detailed investigations under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
