Goods and Services Tax : Explore provisions and implications of Chapter XXI of CGST Act and Chapter IX of IGST Act, covering job work, compliance, and proc...
Goods and Services Tax : Delhi High Court upholds constitutional validity of GST anti-profiteering law and rules. Detailed analysis of implications for bus...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the constitutional validity of Anti-Profiteering provisions under GST, their impact on businesses and consumers, and the l...
Goods and Services Tax : Delhi High Courts stance on anti-profiteering clause: Valid but arbitrary? Explore the intricacies, challenges, and flaws in the a...
Goods and Services Tax : The anti-profiteering provisions under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) were introduced to ensure that businesses pass on the bene...
Goods and Services Tax : Leading consumer and public policy research and advocacy group, CUTS International has requested the Finance Minister, Ms Nirmala ...
Goods and Services Tax : Empanelment of Advocates / Law Firms for representing the National Anti-profiteering Authority and Director General of Anti-Profit...
Goods and Services Tax : Anti-Profiteering Measures The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) was constituted on 28th November, 2017 under Section 17...
Goods and Services Tax : Detailed analysis of Competition Commission of India's order regarding Cinema Ventures Pvt Ltd not passing GST rate reduction bene...
Goods and Services Tax : The average base price of tickets sold before and after the GST rate reduction was compared. The DGAP found that the company had n...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the DGAP report on GST rate reduction impact on movie ticket prices, alleged profiteering by the respondent, detailed inve...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the CCI's order on Asian GPR Multiplex's alleged GST profiteering, detailed investigation findings, and implications under...
Goods and Services Tax : Read the full text of the Competition Commission of India's order on Abhilash Mohanty Vs Vertex Homes Pvt. Ltd regarding CGST rule...
Goods and Services Tax : Central Goods and Services Tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2022 – CBIC omitted following GST Rules 122,124,125,134 and 137 vi...
Goods and Services Tax : CBIC notifies Competition Commission of India to examine whether input tax credits availed by any registered person or the reducti...
It is evident that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on supply of Courier Service after the implementation of GST, instead there was increase in the rate of tax from 15% in pre-GST regime to 18% in post-GST regime. The fact that the Respondent had increased his base price for providing courier service from Rs. 69.5/- to Rs. 80/- has no relevance in view of the fact that there has been no reduction in the rate of tax nor increased benefit on account of Input Tax Credit was available and hence the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 can not be invoked in this case.
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.
The claim of the Respondent that he could not have reduced his prices after the tax reduction due to stiff competition from other exempted and compounding manufacturers, resistance from his customers, increase in the raw material and transportation costs and he was providing robust profit margins and discounts to his dealers cannot be accepted as the present proceedings are only conecerned with ascertaining whether the Respondent had passed on the benefit of rate reduction to his customers or not
During the year 2018, the NAA has passed 28 orders against the complaints referred to it. Following is the gist of NAA Orders issued in 2018. It may be noted that out of 28 Orders, Anti-profiteering could not be established in 18 cases.
Kerala Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs M/s Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case and the invoices placed on record that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01-07-2017 instead the rate of tax in […]
Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering Vs Ms. Rosata Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It was from the Invoices submitted clear that the base price of the product Vitrified Tiles Super Nano Plus (HSN Code 69072100) per box was Rs. 294.50 prior to 15.11.2017 and had remained the same even after GST rate reduction […]
It is evident from the above that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the Applicants as well as the rest 64 purchasers of flats in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus realized more price from them than what he was entitled to charge and has also compelled them to pay more GST than what they were required to pay
Kerala State Level Screening Committee Vs M/s Peps Industries Pvt. Ltd (NAA) It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case that admittedly there was a decrease in the rate of tax on the said product from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 but it is also established that the base (excluding GST) of the […]
Respondent cannot escape the legal obligation which was imposed upon him by Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, by shifting his accountability on this ground. Therefore, the above contention of the appellant cannot be accepted.
Respondent had not increased the discounted per M2price of the above product which had remained Rs. 374.74/- before and after the tax reduction, as was evident from both the invoices issued by him before and after the tax reduction and therefore, the benefit of tax reduction has duly been passed on to the customers by the Respondent. Hence, the allegation of profiteering is not established
