Goods and Services Tax : Even after the sunset clause, anti-profiteering obligations continue through tribunals and policy directions, leaving businesses e...
Goods and Services Tax : The Delhi High Court upheld an anti-profiteering order, ruling that merely increasing product quantity or volume after a GST rate ...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTAT ruled 18% interest on GST anti-profiteering amounts applies prospectively from April 1, 2020, upholding that it cannot be im...
Goods and Services Tax : Delhi HC rules increasing product quantity or base price instead of reducing MRP after a GST rate cut violates Section 171 of the ...
Goods and Services Tax : GST 2.0 rate cuts trigger Anti-Profiteering rules (Sec 171). Summary covers obligation to pass on tax/ITC benefit, MRP display nor...
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 : GSTAT held that retaining the same ticket prices after GST reductions amounted to profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act. ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Tribunal held that procurement strategy, supplier oversight, and sourcing support formed part of a substantive procurement ser...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTAT accepted the DGAP finding that the ratio of credit availed to purchase value declined after GST implementation. Since no add...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTAT held that the retailer failed to pass on the benefit of GST reduction from 28% to 18% through commensurate price cuts. The T...
Goods and Services Tax : GSTAT held that permissions relating to ticket pricing could not override the statutory requirement to pass on GST rate reduction ...
Goods and Services Tax : GST Authority will stop accepting requests for examination of input tax credits and tax rate reductions from April 1, 2025, as per...
Goods and Services Tax : Ministry of Finance empowers GST Appellate Tribunal to examine input tax credits and tax rate reductions, effective from October 1...
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...
Respondent had issued incorrect invoices while selling the above products to his recipients as he had incorrectly shown the base prices and had also compelled them to pay additional GST on the increased prices through the incorrect tax invoices which would have otherwise resulted in further benefit to the recipients.
The issue that needs to be dwelled upon is as to whether there was a case of not passing on of the benefit of ITC and whether the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 are attracted in the present case.
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.
Shri Kumudchandra Atmaram Patel Vs M/s TTK Prestige Limited (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Respondent had increased the base price of the product from Rs. 1,640.62 to Rs. 1,779.66, when the rate of tax was reduced from 28% to 18% with effect from 15.11.2017.Thus, by increasing the base price of the product, post-GST, the benefit of reduction […]
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 […]
