Case Law Details
State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)
It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01-07-2017 and that the rate of tax in the Post-GST era has also been increased from 26.79% to 28%, 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 Applicant and the same is dismissed
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
1. The present Report dated 27.09.2018, 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 brief facts of the case are that The Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering vide the minutes of it’s 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 “Panasonic LED TH43E200DX#45580” by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax at the time of implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. 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, Kerala State Screening Committee had relied on two invoices issued by the Respondent, one was dated 15.06.2017 (Pre-GST) and the other was dated 22.07.2017 (Post-GST).
2. The above reference was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering and was further referred to the DGAP vide minutes of it’s 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.
