Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

Respondent has denied the benefit of tax reduction to his customers.

Anti-Profiteering— In the application, it was alleged that despite the reduction in the rate of GST from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, the Respondent had not passed on the commensurate benefit since he had increased the base prices of his products. Records showed that the worksheet indicating the extent of profiteering sent by the Screening Committee was also received by the DGAP along with the above recommendation of the Standing Committee on 27.03.2019.

In the present case, we determine the profiteered amount as Rs.8,24,260/-, details of the computation of which are given in in Annexure-16 of the DGAP Report dated 09,09.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately. As indicated in the above mentioned Annexure. in terms of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the above Rules. The Respondent is also directed to deposit an amount of Rs.8 24 260/- in two equal parts of Rs.4,12.1301- each in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the and the Maharashtra State Government as per provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c) of the above Rules, since the recipients are not identifiable at this stage and since the supplies were affected in the state of Maharashtra. The above amounts shall be deposited along with 18% interest payable from the dates from which the above amount was realized by the Respondent from his recipients till the date of deposit in the Consumer Welfare Funds. The above amount of Rs.8,24,260/-, along with applicable interest thereon, shall be deposited within 3 months of this order failing which it shall be recovered by the concerned SGST Commissioner.

Since it has been found that the Respondent has denied the benefit of tax reduction to his customers/ recipients in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and since he has resorted to profiteering, he has been found to have committed an offence under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for the imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above. — Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Director-General of Anti-Profiteering. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs. LE Reve Pvt. Ltd. [2020] 22 TAXLOK.COM 036 (NAPA)