Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Anti-Profiteering — The brief facts of this case are that an application was filed by the applicant before the Standing Committee in which he had stated that he had entered in to a contract for supply of a Honda Car through the above respondent, who was an authorised dealer of M/s Honda Car India Ltd. for an amount of Rs. 9,13,300/- which included Excise Duty @ 35%, Central Sales Tax (CST) @ 0.2% and UP Value Added Tax (VAT) @ 14% (Total 51%). He had also stated that he had taken delivery of the Car on 11-07-2017 after coming into force of the GST w.e.f. 01-07-2017, by paying an amount of Rs. 8,98,750/-. He had further stated that after 01-07-2017 the respondent was required to reduce the Excise Duty, CST and VAT amounting to 51% from the price of the Vehicle of Rs. 9,13,300/- and then charge SGST @ 14%, CGST @ 14% and Cess @ 1% (Total 29%) on the reduced price. He has therefore alleged that he was not given benefit of reduced rate of Tax which amounted to profiteering by the above respondent and hence action should be taken against him.
Held that—the car of premium colour was booked at an amount of Rs. 9,13,000/- at pre-GST tax rate but when the applicant took delivery of the 'base colour' car on 11.7.2017 in the post GST period, the respondent had charged the applicant an ex-showroom price of Rs. 8,98,750/- which correctly included basic price of the car, freight, insurance, dealer's margin etc, and GST @ 29%. Thus, the benefit of reduction in the tax rate was passed on to the applicant by way of reduction in the price of the car of base colour by an amount of Rs. 10,550/-. We also find. that the DGSG had also given opportunity to the applicant to inspect the reply and other documents submitted by the respondent and the applicant after inspecting them had submitted vide his letter dated 16.2.2018 that he was satisfied with the reply given by the respondent and therefore his case may be closed.
Based on the above facts we find that the respondent has not contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and accordingly we do not find any merit in the application of Sh. Dinesh Mohan Bharadwaj filed under Rule 128 of the CGST Tax Rules, 2017 and we accordingly dismiss the same.—Dinesh Mohan Bhardwaj Proprietor, M/S U.P. Sales & Services Vs. Vrandavaneshwree Automotive Private Limited  02 TAXLOK.COM 367 (NAPA)