The allegation of profiteering is not established against the Respondent in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as there has been no change in the base price of the product after reduction in the GST rate w.e.f. 15.11.2017.
Anti-profiteering— The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 vide the minutes of its meeting held on 08.05.2018 had referred the present case to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, alleging profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of 'Ceramics Glazed Wal Tiles, Printex Crema, PRM MM HSN Code 69072300', (here-in referred to as the product) by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax w.e.f. 15.11.2017, granted vide Notification No. 41/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 by the Central as well as the State Governments. Thus, it was alleged that the Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Held that— It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case that there has been reduction in the rate of tax on the above product from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 as per the Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017. It is also revealed from the record that the Respondent had not increased the discounted per M2 price of the above product which had remained Rs.374.74/- before and after the tax reduction, as was evident from both the invoices issued by him before and after the tax reduction and therefore, the benefit of tax reduction has duly been passed on to the customers by the Respondent. Hence, the allegation of profiteering is not established against the Respondent in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as there has been no change in the base price of the product after reduction in the GST rate w.e.f. 15.11.2017. As such, we do not find any merit in the application filed by the above Applicants and the same is accordingly dismissed.
The allegation of profiteering is not established against the Respondent in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as there has been no change in the base price of the product after reduction in the GST rate w.e.f. 15.11.2017.
Anti-profiteering— The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1 vide the minutes of its meeting held on 08.05.2018 had referred the present case to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, alleging profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of 'Ceramics Glazed Wal Tiles, Printex Crema, PRM MM HSN Code 69072300', (here-in referred to as the product) by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax w.e.f. 15.11.2017, granted vide Notification No. 41/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 by the Central as well as the State Governments. Thus, it was alleged that the Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Held that— It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case that there has been reduction in the rate of tax on the above product from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 as per the Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017. It is also revealed from the record that the Respondent had not increased the discounted per M2 price of the above product which had remained Rs.374.74/- before and after the tax reduction, as was evident from both the invoices issued by him before and after the tax reduction and therefore, the benefit of tax reduction has duly been passed on to the customers by the Respondent. Hence, the allegation of profiteering is not established against the Respondent in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as there has been no change in the base price of the product after reduction in the GST rate w.e.f. 15.11.2017. As such, we do not find any merit in the application filed by the above Applicants and the same is accordingly dismissed.