Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017—Anti-Profiteering—Refund of excess amount of GST paid—In the instant case, the applicant had ordered a Godrej Interio Slimline Metal Almirah, a tax invoice dated 07.11.2017 was issued to him for an amount of Rs.14,852/- by the supplier and at the time of delivery, another invoice dated 29.11.2017 was issued by the Supplier for an amount of Rs.14,152/-. The Applicant had alleged that he had paid an amount of Rs.14,852/- to the Respondent and the excess amount charged should have been refunded to him.
Held that— It is apparent that the base price of the Supplier was 11,993.75/- and on the cum tax price a discount of 500/- was offered. It is also revealed that the Almirah was supplied to the Applicant by the Supplier vide invoice dated 29.11.2017 in which the base price was again shown as 11,993.87/- and GST of 2158/- was charged @ 18%, as the same had been reduced by the Govt., of India on 14.11.2017 from 28% to 18%. Therefore, it is clear that the Supplier had charged correct rates of GST which were prevalent at the time of placing of the order and the supply of the Almirah through the above two invoices, therefore, no illegality had been done by the Supplier while executing the order placed by the Applicant.
It has been found that the Supplier has refunded an amount of Rs. 700/- through the Respondent which was charged as tax in excess from the Applicant at the time of the placing of the order.
Denial of discount of 500/- which was offered by the Supplier to the Applicant at the time of placing of the order on 4.11.2017 and which was withdrawn by him at the time of supply of the Almirah on 29.11.2017
Thus, The withdrawal of discount does not amount to profiteering as the same was offered from his profit margin by the Supplier and does not form part of the base price and therefore, also the Supplier cannot be held guilty under Section 171 of the Act.
The allegation of profiteering made by the Applicant against the Respondent as well as the Supplier is not established - the application is not maintainable and is dismissed. Rishi Gupta Vs. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.  2 TAXLOK.COM 186 (NAPA)