Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Section 15(3)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 — Valuation under GST—In the instant application, the question before authority is that
1) Whether the amount paid to dealer towards “rate difference” post supply can be considered for the purpose of arriving at the ‘transaction value’ in terms of Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017 and
2) Whether the amount paid to authorized dealers towards “rate difference” after effecting the supply of goods would be allowed under Section 15(1) read with Section 34(1) of the CGST Act or under Section 15(3) read with Section 34(1) ibid.
Held that—it can clearly be seen that the cash discount, price equalization, shoppee discount, quantity discount and annual discount as mentioned in the GST Annexure for Mumbai region at Sr. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively are clearly complying with the requirements of the CGST Act and the criteria or conditions for availing discount as per Section 15(3)(b)(i) and (ii) of the CGST Act and the criteria or conditions for availing discount as per Section 15(3)(b)(i) are specifically mentioned as per agreement before hand.
However we find that in respect of special discount and rate difference as mentioned at Sr. No. 6 and 7 of the above referred GST Annexure for Mumbai region, there is no pre fixed criteria, basis or rationale for arriving at the quantum of these discounts neither as per basis mentioned in GST Annexure for Mumbai region nor as per amendments incorporated in agreements with authorized stockists as referred above.
Thus we find that the amount paid to the Dealer towards “rate difference” and “special discount” as mentioned above, post supply are not complying with the requirements of section 15(3)(b)(i) of the CGST Act and therefore cannot be considered and allowed as discount for the purpose of arriving at the 'transaction value' in terms of Section 15 of the CGST Act.
As the applicant's facts and case are not in compliance of the provisions of Section 15(3)(b)(i) itself, their procedural compliance in other respects is immaterial and not relevant.
Ruling—Both questions stated above are answered in negative. [2018] 2 TAXLOK.COM 250 (AAR-Maharashtra)