FLASH NEWS

Congress to promise GST version II in Lok Sabha polls

GST - Anti-Profiteering Authority asks Hindustan Unilever to pay Rs 383 Cr

FM says two GST rates of 18% and 12% would eventually merge

 

GST NEWS

GST rates reduced on several items; 5% tax rate on LPG supplied in bulk

GST Council nod for single window for Refund; Ambit of refund expanded

GST Council clarifies 12% tax rate applies only to domestic multi-modal transport

GST Council decides to reduce tax rates on many items; allows ITC for last FY; single window for refund & amendments in GSTR-9 & 9C

 

GST CASE LAWS

2018-TIOL-23-NAA-GST

GST - Anti Profiteering - The Kerala State Screening Committee referred the matter, charging the respondent with profiteering from supply of ready-made garments, namely half-sleeve & full-sleeve shirts of different price ranges - It is alleged that the respondent did not pass on the benefit of reduction in rate of duty - Later, the DGAP noted that the goods earlier attracted CST @ 2% in pre-GST era, but later attracted 5% GST - It also noted that pre & post GST base prices remained the same - Hence the DGAP concluded that no profiteering could be established.

Held - There was no reduction in the tax rate on such products upon implementation of GST - Hence the anti-profiteering provision u/s 171(1) of the CGST Act are not attracted - Besides, the per unit base price (excluding tax) of such products did not increase - Hence allegations of profiteering are unsustainable - The application is devoid of merits: NAA

- Application disposed off : NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY

2018-TIOL-22-NAA-GST

GST - Anti-profiteering - The Kerala State Screening Committee referred the matter, charging the respondent with profiteering from supply of 'Panasonic LED TH43E200DX#45580' - It was alleged that the respondent did not pass on the benefit of reduction in rate of GST - Later, the DGAP noted that in the pre-GST era, the product attracted VAT @ 14.5% and Excise duty @ 12.5% on 65% of the abated MRP of the product, as per Notfn No 49/2008-CE(NT) - Upon implementation of GST, the tax rate was 28% - The DGAP noted that the pre-GST tax rate was 26.79% while post-GST rate was 28% - Thus it observed that there was no reduction in tax rate - Hence no profiteering was established & so the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act were not contravened.

Held - From the facts of the case, it is seen that there was no reduction in rate of tax in the post-GST era - Hence the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable as per provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act: NAA

- Application disposed off : NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY

2018-TIOL-21-NAA-GST

GST - Anti-profiteering - The Kerala State Screening Committee charged the respondent with profiteering from supply of 'Peps Spring Koil Bornell Normal Maroon 75x60x6 Mattress (HSN Code 94042910) - It was alleged that the respondent did not pass on benefit arising from reduction in rate of tax upon implementation of GST - Later, the DGAP noted that the product in question attracted 2% CST & Excise duty @ 12.5%, whereas the post-GST tax rate was 28% - Hence it concluded there to be no reduction in tax rate, by virtue of which the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act were not contravened.

Held - It is clear from the facts that there was no reduction in the rate of taxes applicable on the product in question, upon implementation of GST - Hence the charge of profiteering is not sustainable: NAA

- Application disposed off : NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY

2018-TIOL-20-NAA-GST

GST - Anti-Profiteering - The assessee was charged with allegedly profiteering from supply of 'Granure Hard Nero-10 MM & Grenure Hard Crema-10 MM Tiles' (HSN Code 69072100) - It was alleged that the respondent did not pass on benefit of reduction in rate of tax arising from Notfn No 41/2017-CT(R) - The Kerala State Screening Committee referred the present matter, relying on two invoices issued by the respondent - Later, the DGAP observed that the respondent did not increase the per unit base price (excluding GST) of both products after reducing GST rate - However, the DGAP noted that though GST rate was cut from 28% to 18%, the absence of any upward change in the per unit base price (excluding GST) meant that the allegation of profiteering was unsustainable.

Held - Considering the invoices, it is clear that the base prices of both products remained the same - It is also seen that sale price of both products was slashed when the GST rate on both items was revised from 28% to 18% - As the base prices are unchanged & the selling prices have been reduced, it is apparent that the respondent passed on the benefit of tax rate reduction - Hence anti-profiteering provisions u/s 171(1) of CGST Act are not attracted: NAA

- Application disposed off : NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY

2018-TIOL-19-NAA-GST

GST - Anti-profiteering - An anonymous informant stated that the respondent had not reduced the MRP of a number of products sold by it, even though the rate of GST had been reduced from 28% to 18% or from 18% to 12%, on a number of items - It is also alleged that the respondent increased the base price of its products, due to which MRP remained the same even after rate reduction - The informant also submitted various communications issued by the respondent, stating its intention to recover ITC on stock of brands lying with it & that the recovery process had commenced - Later, such findings were sustained by the DGAP.

Held - Considering the facts as well as various evidence put forth, it is found that the respondent wilfully resorted to profiteering, despite knowledge of laws and rules which warranted that the respondent should pass on benefit of GST rate reduction - The respondent unlawfully recovered excess realisation which was due to the respondent's Redistribution Stockists as ITC - This further led to denial of tax reductions to the customers - Besides, in disregard to its obligation to pass on benefit of GST rate reduction, the respondent enhanced the base prices so as to keep them at par with the old MRPs - Hence the respondent is guilty of offences u/s 122(1)(i) of the CGST Act, for issuing incorrect invoices to the customers - Fresh notice be served to the respondent for imposing penalty: NAA

- Appliocation allowed : NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY

 

JEST GST by Vijay Kumar

GST Election Bonanza

ARTICLES

GST: Santa Claus comes calling 'Merry Christmas'...!

Treading the GST Path - 52 - What is the interest payable for ITC demands?