Budget 2024 Updates

Pax plane crashes with 23 onboard at Kathmandu airport; 18 killedINDIA bloc boycotts Parliament; says Budget is discriminatoryI-T- Re-assessment - additions quashed as assessee given fresh opportunity to adduce evidence; nevertheless, assessee failed to participate in hearing despite multiple notices - costs of Rs 40000/- imposed on assessee: HCCX - Final product is copper cathodes and not sulphuric acid, which is a by-product - Oxygen gas captively consumed in manufacture of sulphuric acid is entitled to exemption in terms of notification 67/95-CE: HCGST - Same input and output supplies though attracting different tax rates at different points of time - Since para 3.2 of Circular 135 has been struck down as ultra vires, refund to be extended: HCGST - Demand confirmed since petitioner failed to file a reply - Petitioner can be given one opportunity to explain subject to they depositing 25% of disputed tax from its Electronic Cash register: HCGST - Petitioner's assertion that the ITC available in GSTR-2A exceeds that availed of in GSTR-3B was not considered - Matter remanded; bank attachment lifted: HCGST - Legitimate trade and commerce by every supplier should be allowed to be carried on subject to payment of tax and statutory compliance - Registration to be revived: HCGST - Petitioner unaware of SCNs and the orders passed - Subject to petitioner depositing 25% of disputed tax, matter remanded: HCTaxonomy is not about taxesBudget for Vikasit BharatI-T- Re-assessment invalidated where AO fails to record reasons for re-opening assessment & omits to apply mind before issing notice: ITATWill the Old Tax Regime be Consigned to A Margadarshak Role?I-T - Merely because there were rates differential amongst purchases from different vendors, it cannot be sole reason to infer over-invoicing / inflation of purchases: ITATGSTAT to deal with Anti-Profiteering casesI-T- Proceeds from sale of unsold lottery tickets lying with assessee who is engaged as dealer of lottery tickets, is to be construed as business income : ITATDepartment of Posts releases beta version of DIGIPIN for public commentsI-T-Business loss incurred by the assessee after exclusion of price money from net profit is eligible for set off against winning from lotteries under section 71 of the Act: ITATGovt issues Guidelines for 'Incentives to DISCOMs'I-T- Provisions of Section 44AE cannot be applied to an assessee whose contractor engaged in leasing vehicles owns less than 10 vehicles: ITATGovt has taken initiatives to promote exploration and processing of critical mineralsCX - Since goods have been imported and received at factory of appellant, photocopies of Bills of Entry are supported by certificate for loss of original as well as certificate issued by customs authorities for payment of duty, appellant is eligible for credit: CESTATMajor steps taken for Water Conservation and Rainwater HarvestingST - As per CBEC Circular No. 555/51/2000-CX.1 dated 19.10.2000, where amended provision u/s 11A is invoked to demand duty, it will have retrospective operation: CESTATJuly 21 (Sunday) was hottest day on earth since Ice Age: ScientistsRajasthan gets new industrial park in Union BudgetOver 200 killed in landslides in EthiopiaMacron to retain caretaker govt till OlympicsRepublicans at pain as Harris takes over Biden’s campaign fundsTN Chief Minister to boycott NITI Aayog Saturday meeting as TN gets nothing from BudgetBudget 2024 promotes New income tax regime; offers new tax slabs as sopBudget bonanza for MSMEs - Easier access to credit; boosting export capacityThe GST Summons: A relative can appear!Conditions for revocation of cancellation of registration - May be, maybe not!Benami Act: Immunity can now be withdrawn on IO report
 
GST - No profiteering made on sale of 'Hara Bhara Kabab Sub' - respondent had increased base price to make good loss which occurred due to denial of ITC post GST rate reduction: NAA

 

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, SEPT 28, 2018: A whole gamut of goods/services seem to be affected by the Profiteering bug.

Earlier cases related to purchase of cars, Basmati rice, lifts, Almirah, Vaseline, residential flats, Maybelline FIT Me foundation.

The present case concerns "Hara Bhara Kabab Sub" (product).

The applicant alleges that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST in restaurant service when he had purchased 6 such products.

It is further alleged that the respondent has increased the base price of the product from Rs.130/- to Rs.145/- when the GST had been reduced from 18% to 5%. Inasmuch as the respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of section 171 of the CGST Act.

The DGAP submitted his report and the applicant was called for hearing on 29.05.2018. The respondent did not appear.

However, M/s Subway Systems India Pvt. Ltd., the owners of the Subway brand and which had appointed the respondent as its franchisee appeared for the hearing and submitted that they worked on franchisee model and no consideration was taken from the respondent except the royalty on the net turnover; that M/s Subway was not involved in fixing the price of the products and it was solely the call of the franchisee to fix the prices; that no ITC was being passed on by M/s Subway as the franchisee was free to buy the raw material from the local sources; that only the ingredients and the products to be served were decided by M/s Subway.

The DGAP was also directed to file a reply on the ITC aspect of the pre and post GST era and to extend the investigation to the other outlets and products of M/s Subway. The DGAP informed that GST on restaurant service had been reduced from 18% (with ITC) to 5% (without ITC) w.e.f 15.11.2017 and, therefore, investigation could not be conducted for the period prior to 15.11.2017 and that there were almost 600 outlets of M/s Subway all over the country and without separately investigating each one of them, no comments could be offered.

The respondent appeared on 13 August and informed that Rs.452/- which was alleged to have been charged from the customers on 14.11.2017 (wrongly indicated as 14.11.2018) was due to the system error and the respondent had no intention of overcharging; that the rates of the impugned goods were increased due to denial of ITC and the DGAP had not alleged any profiteering on this behalf.

The National Anti-Profiteering Authority observed that -

+ GST on restaurant service had been reduced vide notification 46/2017-CTR from 18% to 5% and ITC had been disallowed;

+ That the applicant had purchased the goods from respondent who had increased the base price from Rs.130/- to Rs.145/-

+ That the respondent had increased the base price to make good the loss which had occurred due to denial of ITC post GST rate reduction;

+ That the respondent had increased the average base price by 12.14% to neutralize the denial of ITC of 11.80% and such increase is commensurate with the increase in the cost of the product on account of denial of ITC;

+ Allegation of not passing on the benefit of rate reduction is not established against the respondent;

+ As regards the issue of alleged profiteering of Rs.452/- made on the supply of products on 14.11.2017, same cannot be treated as profiteering in terms of section 171 of the Act as there was no rate reduction on 14.11.2017 but the same had occurred w.e.f. 15.11.2017 only.

Concluding that the respondent had not contravened the provisions of section 171 of the Act, the application was dismissed as being bereft of any merits.

(See 2018-TIOL-08-NAA-GST)


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: subway to profiteer


please note that case has not been fought properly.
there is a case of profiteering if goods sold on 15.11.2017 was from the stock dt 14.11 or prior to that.where it carried itc benefit.

Posted by Navin Khandelwal
 

TIOL Tube Latest

Dr. Shailendra Kumar, Chairman, TIOL Knowledge Foundation, addressing the gathering



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.