2018-TIOL-GST-211 Dated: Thursday, September 27, 2018

GST HIGH COURT CASES

2018-TIOL-131-HC-MAD-GST

Sri Alagar Industries Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner's grievance is that they are unable to upload form GST TRAN-1 to take credit of the input tax/service tax/central excise duty availed by them at the time of migration within the stipulated time on account of technical glitches - Petitioner submits that that they have made a detailed representation dated 30.07.2018 before the jurisdictional assessing officer and pray for a direction to the said authority to forward the representation to the Nodal Officer, who in turn, may be directed to act in accordance with the Circular No.39/13/2018-GST, dated 03.04.2018 - Writ Petition disposed of with directions that representation be forwarded to Nodal Officer within one week and Grievance committee to take appropriate decision within a period of four weeks: High Court

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-130-HC-MAD-GST

Sri Krishna Chemical Industries Vs Govt Of Tamil Nadu

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

GST NAPA CASE

2018-TIOL-07-NAPA-GST

Neeru Varshney Vs Lifestyle International Pvt Ltd

GST - Anti-profiteering - Respondent had enhanced the basic price of the product which was exactly equal to the amount by which the GST on them had been reduced and hence there is no doubt that the Respondent had resorted to profiteering - Respondent cannot claim that since the amount of profiteering was miniscule no penalty should be imposed as each breach of the law has to be visited penalty: NAPA

Application allowed

Facts:

An application was filed alleging that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax by lowering the price of "Maybelline FIT Me foundation", which she had purchased, when the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was reduced from 28% to 18% on this product on 15.11.2017. The applicant also alleged that she had bought the above product from the Respondent @ Rs. 525/- per unit vide tax invoice No. 1230010554 on 22.11.2017 which included GST @ 18%. It is also claimed that the Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence appropriate action should be taken against him.

Held:

+ GST rate on the product was reduced from 28% to 18% vide Notification No. 41/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017, with effect from 15.11.2017, the benefit of which was required to be passed on to the recipients by the Respondent as per the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act.

+ It is evident from the facts that the Respondent had enhanced the basic price of the product which was exactly equal to the amount by which the GST on them had been reduced and hence there is no doubt that the Respondent had resorted to profiteering amounting to Rs. 15,861/- (in total) which includes profiteering of Rs. 41/- made by him from the Applicant, which constitutes violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act.

+ It is also established that the Respondent had issued incorrect invoices while selling the product to his customers as he had not correctly shown the basic price which he should have legally charged from them which is an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence he is liable for imposition of penalty under the above Section.

+ Similarly the CGST Act, 2017 also provides for imposition of interest under the Act and therefore, the same can be levied in the present proceedings.

+ The Respondent cannot claim that since the amount of profiteering was miniscule no penalty should be imposed as each breach of the law has to be visited penalty.

+ Respondent is directed to reduce the price of both the shades of the product to Rs. 410/- and Rs. 449/- respectively excluding GST. He is also directed to refund an amount of Rs. 41/- along with interest @ 18% to the Applicant No. 1 from the date when this amount was realised by him from her till the date of refund.

+ Since rest of the recipients are not identifiable, the DGAP is directed to get the balance amount of profiteering of Rs. 15,820/- deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central and the Concerned State Govt. as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c) of the CGST Rules, 2017 along with interest @ 18% till the amount is paid.

+ Notice to the Respondent to show cause as to why penalty as per the provisions of Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, should not be imposed upon him.

+ The Respondent has himself admitted that an amount of Rs. 1,98,46,438/- might not have been passed on to the individual buyers by him, therefore, the DGAP is directed to investigate the claim made by the Respondent in this Para and submit Report to the Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the above Rules.

CGST CIRCULAR

66/2018

GST on Residential programmes or camps meant for advancement of religion, spirituality or yoga by religious and charitable trusts

METROLOGY

Reference from Department of Consumer Affairs on taking Assistance of the State Legal Metrology Controllers to pass on the benefits of reduced GST to consumers

ARTICLES

GST - Due dates for multiple returns - Avoidable cobwebs!

Taxing Times for Textile Sector