The National Anti-Profiteering Authority held that the allegation of profiteering against Panasonic is not sustainable.
A Report by the Director-General Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (DGAP) was received after carrying a detailed investigation. The Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering vide the minutes of its meeting had referred the present matter to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering alleging profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of Panasonic LED by not passing the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax at the time of implementation of GST.
It was alleged that M/S Panasonic (respondent) had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act.
The DGAP further stated that in the pre-GST era, the said product attracted VAT and Central Excise Duty of 14.5% and 12.5% respectively vide Notification No. 49/2008. On implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the GST rate on the said product was fixed at 28% signifying an increase in the rate of tax on the said product after referring to the invoices submitted. It was hence contended that this did not constitute a violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The facts of the present case were hence analyzed on the premise that whether the increase in rate of tax in the Post GST era attracts the provisions of Section 171.
It was hence held by the Bench constituting of B.N. Sharma as the Chairman, J.C. Chauhan, R. Bhagyadevi and Amand Shah as the Technical Members that the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
