In this case there has been a reduction in the rate of tax on Ceramics Glazed Wal Tiles, Printex Crema from 28% to 18% as per the Notification by the Central government dated November 14, 2017.
The Applicant, Kerala State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering 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, by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax, granted vide Notification 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. In this regard, the Applicant had relied on two invoices issued by the Respondent, one Pre-GST rate reduction) and the other Post-GST rate reduction.
The Authority observed from the record that the Respondent, M/s Somany Ceramics Limited had not increased the discounted per M2 Price of the 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.
The Authority consists of a Chairman, B.N. Sharma, and Technical Members, J.C. Chauhan, R. Bhagyadevi, and Amand Shah held that if the post discount rate remains the same pre and post-reduction, it does not amount to profiteering.
“The allegation of profiteering is not established against the Respondent in terms of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 as there has been no change in the base price of the product after reduction in the Goods and Service Tax (GST) rate with effect from 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 authority observed.Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment