The Respondent has not contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence we find no merit in the application
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti- Profiteering – This report has been received from the DGAP. It has been alleged that profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of Peps Spring Koil Bornell Normal Maroon 75x60x6” Mattress (HSN Code 94042910), by not passing on the benefit of reduction of GST rate w.e.f. 15.11.2017, vide Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The Kerala State Screening Committee had relied on two invoices issued by M/s. Peps Industries Pvt. Ltd. The DGAP after scrutiny has submitted that although there was a decrease in the rate of tax on the said product from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, the base price (excluding GST) of the product was reduced from Rs.7986/- to Rs.7,034/- after offering a discount of Rs.1,006/-. As the base price of the product stood reduced, the provisions of Section 171 of the Act, 2017 are not contravened and the allegation of profiteering by the Respondent is not established.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that there was a decrease in the rate of tax on the said product from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 and the base price (excluding GST) of the product was also reduced from Rs.7986/- to Rs.7,034/-. As such, the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable.
The Respondent has not contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence we find no merit in the application
Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anti- Profiteering – This report has been received from the DGAP. It has been alleged that profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of Peps Spring Koil Bornell Normal Maroon 75x60x6” Mattress (HSN Code 94042910), by not passing on the benefit of reduction of GST rate w.e.f. 15.11.2017, vide Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The Kerala State Screening Committee had relied on two invoices issued by M/s. Peps Industries Pvt. Ltd. The DGAP after scrutiny has submitted that although there was a decrease in the rate of tax on the said product from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, the base price (excluding GST) of the product was reduced from Rs.7986/- to Rs.7,034/- after offering a discount of Rs.1,006/-. As the base price of the product stood reduced, the provisions of Section 171 of the Act, 2017 are not contravened and the allegation of profiteering by the Respondent is not established.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority held that there was a decrease in the rate of tax on the said product from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 and the base price (excluding GST) of the product was also reduced from Rs.7986/- to Rs.7,034/-. As such, the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable.