TOP NEWS
GST - Higher exemption limit, Composition Scheme for Service Providers notified
CGST RULE NOTIFICATION
14/2019
Seeks to supersede notification No. 08/2017 - Central Tax dated 27.06.2017 in order to extend the limit of threshold of aggregate turnover for availing Composition Scheme u/s 10 of the CGST Act, 2017 to Rs. 1.5 crores.
13/2019
Seeks to prescribe the due dates for furnishing of FORM GSTR-3B for the months of April, May and June, 2019.
12/2019
Seeks to prescribe the due dates for furnishing of FORM GSTR-1 for those taxpayers with aggregate turnover of more than Rs. 1.5 crores for the months of April, May and June, 2019.
11/2019
Seeks to prescribe the due dates for furnishing of FORM GSTR-1 for those taxpayers with aggregate turnover upto Rs. 1.5 crores for the months of April, May and June, 2019.
10/2019
To give exemption from registration for any person engaged in exclusive supply of goods and whose aggregate turnover in the financial year does not exceed Rs 40 lakhs.
CGST RATE NOTIFICATION
02/2019
To give composition scheme for supplier of services with a tax rate of 6% having annual turn over in preceding year upto Rs 50 lakhs.
UTGST RATE NOTIFICATION
02/2019
To give composition scheme for supplier of services with a tax rate of 6% having annual turn over in preceding year upto Rs 50 lakhs
CGST CIRCULAR
92/2019
Circular clarifying various doubts related to treatment of sales promotion scheme under GST and Corrigendum to Circular No. 76/50/2018-GST issued.
GST CASES
AAR CASES
2019-TIOL-60-AAR-GST
Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt Ltd
GST - There is neither any supply of goods nor services flowing from the applicant - applicant actually gets the products manufactured by the Contract Bottling Units (CBUs) - There is no supply of goods or services or both by the applicant as per the definition of ‘supply' u/s 7 of the GST Act: AAR
- Application Dispose of: AAR
2019-TIOL-59-AAR-GST
Biostadt India Ltd
GST - Sales promotion Scheme - Kharif Gold Scheme 2018 - Gold coins distributed to customers at the end of the scheme for achieving stipulated lifting or payment criteria - ITC not admissible on procurement of Gold coins - ITC not available on ‘gifts' when no GST is being paid on their disposal, section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 blocks such credits: AAR
- Application Dispose of:AAR
NAA CASE
2019-TIOL-16-NAA-GST
Director General Anti-Profiteering Vs Cloudtail Pvt Ltd
GST - Anti-Profiteering - Allegation is that the respondent has not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate applicable to printing cartridges (HSN 8483) [HP 678 L0S24AA Combo Pack Ink Advantage Cartridges (Black & Tri-color) B00UHG8BFI] from 28% to 18% w.e.f 15.11.2017 and had increased the base price, therefore, there was no reduction in the price (inclusive of GST @18%) charged from recipients - applicant has submitted copies of two sale invoices dated 04.10.2017 and 09.12.2017 issued by respondent -In response to the notice by the DGAP, the respondent submitted that he was a retailer and sold the products manufactured by other vendors; that he had no control over the MRP affixed by the manufacturer/importer; that the manufacturer/brand-owner (HP) had changed the MRP during the period between July to December 2017; that HP had first increased the MRP on account of increase in the tax rate from 5% (VAT) to 28% (GST) and also on account of imposition of Customs duty @10% on cartridges w.e.f 01.07.2017; that subsequently HP had decreased the MRP to pass on the benefit reduction in GST rate w.e.f 15.11.2017 and that he had not sold any product above the MRP fixed by the manufacturer/importer; that probably the sale made on 04.10.2017 was from pre-GST stock and the sale made on 09.12.2017 was from the stock imported/manufactured after 15.11.2017; that the invoice issued on 04.10.2017 had been raised during the ‘Great Indian Festival Sale', a promotional event run by M/s Amazon whereas the invoice dated 09.12.2017 was raised during the course of routine business when there was no promotion and no exceptional discounts were offered; that the margin earned by him on the sale effected on 09.12.2017 was reasonable and within the entitled and negotiated margins agreed with HP and that the Authority had in the case of Flipkart 2018-TIOL-04-NAA-GST
observed that the withdrawal of discount would not amount to profiteering - DGAP in its report has noted that the two invoices referred showed that the respondent has offered similar discount of 5% as earlier on the increased base price after GST rate reduction w.e.f 15.11.2017; that by increasing the base price of the goods and also by increasing the cum-tax price charged from the recipients post GST rate reduction the benefit of GST rate reduction was not passed on by the respondent to the recipients; that the profiteered amount during the period 15.11.2017 to 31.07.2018 came to Rs.10,79,813.28; that in respect of the supply of the 1 unit of printer cartridge covered by the impugned invoice dated 09.12.2017, the profiteered amount is Rs.214.76 but the beneficiary could not be identified as the invoice did not show the name and address of the buyer.
Held:
+ Respondent's contention that the proceedings initiated should be deemed to be infructuous as the complaint was not against him but against HP India who was the brand owner and who controlled the MRP and he being a retailer had no say in fixing the MRP is untenable as the fact remains that the invoices quoted by the applicant have been issued by the respondent on the e-commerce platform; that since he is registered under GST his obligation to pass on the benefit of rate reduction still remained and holds good; that Rule 127(ii) of the Rules states that the Authority has to identify the registered person who has not passed on the benefit to the recipient and in this case the respondent was clearly that registered person; Rule 137(c) states that anyone who alleges profiteering can file a complaint so it is not necessary that the complainant has to purchase the goods/products, therefore, the Standing Committee has rightly forwarded the same to the DGAP and the DGAP has accordingly completed its investigation and filed his report.
+ GST envisages that every supplier is to be registered and every registered supplier is bound by s.171 of the Act to pass on the benefit of reduction in tax - supplier here is the respondent who has increased the price even after reduction in the GST rate of tax; passing of the benefit by the distributor or retailer does not rest on the fact that the manufacturer or his supplier should have first passed on the same benefit to him.
+ Statistics clearly show that when the MRP reduced from Rs.1239/- to Rs.1158/-, the procurement price remaining the same and with GST rate being reduced from 28% to 18%, the respondent had increased his selling price by Rs.13.39 per unit and on this increased price GST of 18% has been collected.
+ Respondent has not only increased his base price but has also collected GST on the increased base price, therefore, the recipient has to be given the benefit of the increased base price and the increased tax collected from him - profiteered amount has been correctly computed at Rs.10,79,813.28 by the DGAP - respondent is, therefore, directed to reduce the price of the said product as per provisions of rule 133(3)(a) of the CGST Rules by making commensurate reduction in prices keeping in view the reduction in the rate of tax - respondent is also directed to deposit the profiteered amount along with interest @18% - as the applicant has admitted that the product has not been purchased by him hence the question of refund does not arise - the entire profiteered amount is directed to be deposited into the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Centre and the respective States in the ratio of 50:50 within a period of three months - since respondent has profiteered by increasing his base price, he is liable for penalty under section 122(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017 for issuing incorrect invoices, notice to be issued accordingly: NAA
- Application disposed of: NAA
