|
Advanced Search Options
GST - ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 6 of 6 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
2020 (7) TMI 546
Profiteering - restaurant service supplied by the Respondent (Franchisee of M/s Subway Systems India Pvt Ltd.) - allegation that the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST not passed on by way of commensurate reduction of price - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- The profiteered amount is determined as ₹ 7,53,8541- as has been computed vide Annexure-13 of the DGAP’s Report dated 31.12.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately in terms of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the above Rules. Further, since the recipients of the benefit, as determined above are not identifiable, the Respondent is directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 7,53,854/- in two equal parts of ₹ 3,76,927/- each in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the Rajasthan State Consumer Welfare Fund as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c) of the CGST Rules 2017, along with interest payable @ 18% to be calculated from the dates on which the above amount was realized by the Respondent from his recipients till the date of its deposit. The above amount of ₹ 7,53,854/- shall be deposited, as specified above, within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order failing which it shall be recovered by the concerned CGST/SGST Commissioner.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has denied the benefit of tax reduction to the customers in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and he has thus resorted to profiteering. Hence, he has committed an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable to penal action under the provisions of the above Section - Accordingly, a notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
-
2020 (7) TMI 507
Profiteering - purchase of flat - allegation that the benefit of input tax credit not passed on - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- The respondent has benefiteed from the additional ITC to the extent of 7.06% of the turnover during the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2019 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the repsondent as he has not passed on the benefit to his customers and thus, he has profiteered an amount of ₹ 2,87,64,178/- inclusive of GST @ 12% as is evident from the report.
The respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him in the project in contravention of section 171 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 and thus he has resorted to profiteering.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The respondent has committed as offence u/s 171(3A) of CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is apparently liable for imposition of penalty - accordingly, a SCN be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed u/s 171 (3A) of the Act read with Rule 133(3)(d) of CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
-
2020 (7) TMI 442
Profiteering - purchase of a flat - allegation that the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax not passed on - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - imposition of penalty - HELD THAT:- The amount of benefit of ITC which was required to be passed on by the Respondent or the profiteered amount is determined as ₹ 1,70,28,230/- including the GST @12% on the basic profiteered amount of Rs. as has been mentioned in Annexure-25 of the Report dated 10.12.2019, in terms of Rule 133 (1) of the above Rules. This amount includes an amount of ₹ 488/- including GST @12% on the base amount of ₹ 435/- which has been profiteered by the Respondent from the Applicant No. 1. The Respondent has also realized an additional amount of ₹ 1,70,27,742/- which includes both the profiteered amount @5.38% of the taxable amount (base price) and GST on the said profiteered amount from the other 176 flat buyers who were not party in the present proceedings.
It is also clear from the facts of the case that the Respondent has been directed to pass on the benefit of ITC till 30.04.2019 as data only till April, 2019 was available. Any benefit of ITC which may become available to the Respondent post 30.04.2019 would a so be passed on by the Respondent to the eligible buyers, The State Commissioner GST shall ensure that the above benefit is passed on to the eligible buyers and a report is submitted to this Authority through the DGAP within a period of 4 months from the date of this order.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- It is also evident that the Respondent has denied the benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him in his Project ‘Sky Terraces’ in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act. 2017. Therefore, he is apparently liable for imposition of penalty as per the provisions of Section 171 (3A) read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, notice be issued to him to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him.
-
2020 (7) TMI 340
Profiteering - restaurant services - allegation that benefit of reduction in GST rate not passed on by way of commensurate reduction in prices - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- The profiteered amount is determined as ₹ 41,93,431/- as has been computed in Annexure-14 of DGAP's Report dated 27.12.2019 - Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately in terms of Rule 133(3)(a) of the above rules - Further, since the recipients of the benefit, as determined, are not identifiable, the respondent is directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 41, 93,431/- in two equal parts of ₹ 20,96,715.50 each in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the Maharashtra State Consumer Welfare Fund as per the provisions of Rule 133(3)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017 alongwith interest payable @ 18% to be calculated from the respondent from his recipients till the date of its deposit. The above amount of ₹ 41, 93, 431/- shall be deposited, within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order failing which it shall be recovered by the concerned CGST/SGST Commissioners.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The respondent has denied the benefit of tax reduction to the customers in contravention of the provisions of section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and he has thus resorted to profiteering. Hence, he has committed an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore he is loable to penal action under the provisions of the section - accordingly, a notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under section 171 (3A) of the Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
-
2020 (7) TMI 309
Profiteering - sale of Flat - allegation that the benefit of input tax credit not passed on - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- the Respondent has passed on benefit of ₹ 28,22,65,749/- to the home buyers on account of ITC which has been duly confirmed by the DGAP. Therefore, the Respondent is directed to pass on the balance benefit of ITC of ₹ 1,04,77,604/-in case of 908 residential flat buyers including the Applicant No. 1, mentioned at Sr. 1 & 2 of Table-G. as per Annexure-15 of the DGAP’s Report dated 10.12.2019. The details of the profiteered amount and the buyers have been mentioned by the DGAP in the above Annexure. These buyers are identifiable as per the documents placed on record and therefore, the Respondent is directed to pass on an amount of ₹ 1,04,23,791/- and the amount of ₹ 53,813/- to the other flat buyers and the Applicant No. 1 respectively along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the dates from which the above amount was collected by him from them till the payment is made, within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order as per the details mentioned in Annexure-15 attached with the Report dated 10.12.2019 in terms of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the above Rules. The Respondent shall not adjust any excess ITC benefit which he has passed on as per Annexure-16 against the benefit which is due to the beneficiaries as per Annexure-15. In case the above amount is not refunded by the Respondent during the above period it shall be recovered by the concerned Commissioner CGST/CGST and paid to the eligible buyers.
This Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from the buyers of the flats of the above Project commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him, Since the present investigation is only up to 31.03.2019 any benefit of ITC which accrues subsequently shall also be passed on to the buyers by the Respondent Accordingly, the DGAP under 133 (4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 is directed to further investigate the amount of benefit which is required to be passed on by the Respondent w.e.f. 01.042019 till 30.06.2020 or till the date of issue of Completion Certificate whichever is earlier.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him in his above project in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and he has thus resorted to profiteering. Hence, he has committed an offence under Section 171 (3A} of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is apparently liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above Section. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A} of the above Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
-
2020 (7) TMI 286
Profiteering - supply of Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films where the price of admission ticket was above one hundred rupees - benefit of reduction in the rate of GST not passed on - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has resorted to profiteering by way of either increasing the base prices of the service while maintaining the same selling prices or by way of not reducing the selling prices of the service commensurately, despite a reduction in GST rate on ‘Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films where price of admission ticket is above one hundred rupees” from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019. on this account, the Respondent has realized an additional amount to the tune of ₹ 30,13,058/- from the recipients which included both the profiteered amount and GST on the said profiteered amount. Thus the profiteering is determined as ₹ 30,13,058/- as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Respondent is therefore directed to reduce the prices of his tickets as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, keeping in view the reduction in the rate of tax so that the benefit is passed on to the recipients. The Respondent is also directed to deposit the profiteered amount of ₹ 30,13,058/- along with the interest to be calculated @ 18% from the date when the above amount Was collected by him from the recipients till the above amount is deposited.
Since the recipients, in this case, are not identifiable, the Respondent is directed to deposit the amount of profiteering of ₹ 15,06,529/- in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) and ₹ 15,06,529/- in the Telangana state as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, along with 18% interest. The above amount shall be deposited within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this Order failing Which the same shall be recovered by the Commissioner SGST as per the provisions of the SGST Act, 2017.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has denied the benefit of rate reduction to his customers/recipients in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and resorted to profiteering and hence, committed an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, he is liable for the imposition of penalty under the provisions of the Section. Accordingly, a notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
|
