A bit of proofreading would have helped APR
JUNE 20, 2017
By Abhishek Panicker
CALL it hackneyed but one cannot but blame the authorities concerned as far as drafting of legislations go.
Take a look at the latest development on the GST front.
The Rule 3 of Anti-Profiteering Rules, 2017 reads thus -
|
3. Constitution of the Authority.-
The Authority shall consist of –
(a) a Chairman who holds or has held a post equivalent in rank to a Secretary to the Government of India; and
(i)
(b) four Technical Members who are or have been Commissioners of State tax or central tax or have held an equivalent post under the existing law,
-to be nominated by the Council.
|
Pray, what does this clause "(i)" stand for?
A hurried piece of legislation! What is hidden against this clause?
So also, in the Rule 8 as extracted below -
| 8. Duties of the Authority - It shall be the duty of the Authority:- |
(1) x x x;
(2) x x x;
(3) to order,
|
(a) reduction in prices;
|
(b) return to the recipient, an amount equivalent to the amount not passed on by way of commensurate reduction in prices along with interest at the rate of eighteen percent from the date of collection of higher amount till the date of return of such amount or recovery of the amount not returned in case the eligible person does not claim return of the amount or is not identifiable, and depositing the same in the Fund referred to in section 57.
(c) x x x
(d) x x x
|
Presumably, "interest at the rate of eighteen percent" is supposed to be read as “interest at the rate of eighteen percent per annum” or is it “per day” considering the fact that the Anti-profiteering Rules are meant to act as deterrent on those assessees who wish to keep all the benefits accrued from the new taxation system in their kitty without passing the benefits to the recipient.
Moreover, considering the fact that the inquiry conducted by the Director General of Safeguards in terms of rule 10/13 is deemed to be a “judicial proceedings” within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the order of the National Anti-profiteering Authority based on the report received from the Director General of Safeguards may very well be appealed against by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Simply because there is no appellate authority prescribed.
So also, rule 7 of the Rules reads-
|
7. Power to determine the methodology and procedure:-
The Authority may determine the methodology and procedure for determination as to whether the reduction in rate of tax on the supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit has been passed on by the registered person to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices.
|
It is apparent that the "methodology and procedure" may make an appearance in the days to come.
Similar is the case with rule 9(1) of the Anti-Profiteering Rules wherein the form and manner of the written application(alleging profiteering) made by an interested party/ Commissioner or any other person is required to be prescribed.Albeit the fact is that the word "benefit" has been spelt as "benfit".
So much for accuracy!
With all such minor pitfalls, GST would still be a reality on 1st July 2017.
| (DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and Taxindiaonline.com doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the site) |
