Respondent has deliberately and consciously acted in contravention of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 by issuing incorrect invoices which is an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the above Act and hence he is liable for imposition of penalty under the above Section read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Anti-Profiteering — Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— This report has been received from the DGAP. An application forwarded to the DGAP for investigation that respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, instead he had increased the base price to keep the MRP of his product to maintain the same price which he was charging before the rate of tax was reduced on 15.11.2917 and thus, the Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The DGAP submitted that 388 products supplied by the Respondent during the period were impacted by the reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017. Out of the above 388 products 81 products were not sold during the period. Out of the remaining 307 products, it was observed that the base prices of 259 products were increased and the base prices of 48 products were reduced post 15.11.2017. The total amount of profiteering by the Respondent during the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31 03.2018, arrived at Rs.3,43, 109/-.The Respondent stated that the demand raised on him was incorrect as he was only a distributor of the products. He has further added that the MRP was fixed by the manufacturer. The Manufacturer submitted that the pricing of the products sold by the distributors was not controlled by them. Further, according to the agreement, the distributor was entitled to give discounts and sell the goods at a price lower than the recommended price to his customers.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that the Respondent had issued incorrect invoices while selling the products to his customers as he had not correctly shown the basic prices. The Respondent has deliberately and consciously acted in contravention of the provisions of the Act, 2017 by issuing incorrect invoices which is an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the above Act, and hence liable for imposition of penalty. Although notice for imposition of penalty has already been issued to the Respondent but he has not been heard on the quantum of penalty. Accordingly, a fresh notice may be given to him to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him.Director General Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. Raj & Company [2018] 7 TAXLOK.COM 059 (NAPA)
Respondent has deliberately and consciously acted in contravention of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 by issuing incorrect invoices which is an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the above Act and hence he is liable for imposition of penalty under the above Section read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Anti-Profiteering — Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— This report has been received from the DGAP. An application forwarded to the DGAP for investigation that respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, instead he had increased the base price to keep the MRP of his product to maintain the same price which he was charging before the rate of tax was reduced on 15.11.2917 and thus, the Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The DGAP submitted that 388 products supplied by the Respondent during the period were impacted by the reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017. Out of the above 388 products 81 products were not sold during the period. Out of the remaining 307 products, it was observed that the base prices of 259 products were increased and the base prices of 48 products were reduced post 15.11.2017. The total amount of profiteering by the Respondent during the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31 03.2018, arrived at Rs.3,43, 109/-.The Respondent stated that the demand raised on him was incorrect as he was only a distributor of the products. He has further added that the MRP was fixed by the manufacturer. The Manufacturer submitted that the pricing of the products sold by the distributors was not controlled by them. Further, according to the agreement, the distributor was entitled to give discounts and sell the goods at a price lower than the recommended price to his customers.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that the Respondent had issued incorrect invoices while selling the products to his customers as he had not correctly shown the basic prices. The Respondent has deliberately and consciously acted in contravention of the provisions of the Act, 2017 by issuing incorrect invoices which is an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the above Act, and hence liable for imposition of penalty. Although notice for imposition of penalty has already been issued to the Respondent but he has not been heard on the quantum of penalty. Accordingly, a fresh notice may be given to him to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him.Director General Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. Raj & Company [2018] 7 TAXLOK.COM 059 (NAPA)
FOR FREE CONDUCTED TOUR OF OUR ON-LINE LIBRARIES WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE-- CLICK HERE