|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 107 of 107 Records
-
2019 (1) TMI 139 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - four models of Motor Car - benefit of reduction in the rate of tax not passed - contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Held that:- First of all it is observed that the rate of tax was 15.63% in the pre-GST era which was increased to 29% in the post-GST era - It is evident that before discount base prices of all the products had remained the same. These facts have also not been disputed by the representative of the Applicant No. 1. Hence the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 are not attracted.
It is clear that the Respondent has not contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence there is no merit in the application filed by the Applicant - application dismissed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 86 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seizure of goods - imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act - details of the purchasers/buyers situated at different places in Kanpur are incomplete, as has been mentioned both in invoices as well as in goods receipt - maintainability of petition - Held that:- There are several disputed question of facts involved in the present writ petition and in our opinion the same can be appropriately adjudicated by the authorities including the appellate authority - the petitioner has not disputed that the impugned order is appealable.
There are no hesitation to dismiss the writ petition at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum/appellate authority in accordance with law - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 25 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA
Public charitable and religious trust - scope of business - scope of supply - main object of the Appellant trust is to spread the knowledge of the Jain Dharam and advancement of teachings of Paramkrupaludev Shrimad Rajchandra - whether the activities carried out by them would fall under the definition of business as defined under the Section 2(17) of the CGST Act, 2017? - registration under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and the MGST Act, 2017 - sale of spiritual products which are incidental and ancillary to main charitable object.
Held that:- he definition of ‘business’ under the CGST Act is wide enough to include trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, wager or any other similar activities. The term ‘trade’ is a comprehensive term which covers the activity of buying, selling or exchanging goods or services. The terms ‘trade and commerce’ by themselves mean the buying or selling goods or services between people. The charitable trust may be formed with the fundamental objectives of carrying out spiritual activity and salvation. But it also, at the same time, sells goods and services under the auspices of the trust.
The trust sells various goods and services to the people desiring to buy them and such an activity by itself forms a part of the objective of the trust - The main activity or object of the trust includes trade and commerce and as the definition of ‘business’ under the CGST Act includes the words ‘trade and commerce’ it can be said that the appellant is engaged in supply of goods and services and is therefore liable to get itself registered.
The appellant sells goods and services for consideration and its various activities come within the ambit of definition of ‘supply’ - it is already held as how the appellant can be said to be engaged in the business. Therefore, the said supply of spiritual products like books, CDs and DVDs are in the nature of supply in the course of business.
Specific exemption from GST is given to charitable institutions registered u/s.12AA of the IT Act, 1961. It can be gathered that the intention of the legislature is to tax all the activities of supply goods and services by charitable trust except those specifically exempted. This is with the background that charitable institutions qua their activities of charity do not lend themselves to any specific concession or exemption from the definition of ‘supply’ or ‘business’ or ‘taxable person’. The very fact that certain services have been carved out and given out a special treatment makes it clear that all trade and commerce transaction of selling books, statutes, CDs and DVDs etc. done commercially for consideration come within the broad ambit of ‘business’ under the CGST Act.
Ruling:- The decision in Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-41/201718/8-48 dated 14.06.2018 [2018 (9) TMI 235 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA] is upheld.
-
2019 (1) TMI 24 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods with vehicle - furnishing of bank guarantee - Held that:- Identical issue decided in the case of RENJI LAL DAMODARAN, DAMU & SONS SALES CORPORATION VERSUS STATE TAX OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA AND ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER, KARUNAGAPALLY [2018 (8) TMI 1145 - KERALA HIGH COURT] - respondent authorities are directed to release the petitioner's goods and vehicle on his "furnishing Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of goods in the form as prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (1) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods with vehicle - Section 129 of the GST Act - Held that:- The petitioner-Company is a dealer with its registration in Tamil Nadu. When it wanted to comply with the statutory demand and get the goods released, the respondent authorities insisted that the petitioner should have a temporary registration, remit the amounts using that registration, and then get the goods released. The petitioner is disinclined to follow that procedure. It wants to remit the amounts using its own Tamil Nadu registration and have the goods released.
The Government pleader took instructions from the authorities, and informed the Court that the petitioner's representative can approach the authorities with a request to remit the amounts. They will generate the challan in the petitioner's name using a temporary registration and hand it over to the petitioner's representative. That person, then, can approach the Bank, remit the amount, and produce the proof before the authorities. Thereafter, the authorities will release the goods - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (1) TMI 22 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - manufacturers of Fast Moving Goods Consumer Goods (FMCGs) - benefit of reduction in the rate of tax not passed - increase in the base price - contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Held that:- The fact that the GST rates have been reduced vide Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14 11.2017, with effect from 15.11.2017 is not in dispute. The Respondent is a distributor who is duly registered under the above Act and hence the benefit of rate reduction was required to be passed on by him to the recipients as per the provisions of Section 171 of the CGAT Act, 2017 - From the perusal of the invoices dated 11.10.2017 and 30.11.2017 it is noticed that the Respondent had increased the base price of Garnier Nat Shade 3 from ₹ 24.41 (price charged prior to rate reduction) to ₹ 26.48 (price charged after rate reduction). Similarly from the perusal of Annexure-13 of the DGAP's Report it is clear that to retain the MRPs of all his products at pre-GST rate reduction the Respondent had increased the base prices of his products to the extent of GST rate reduction.
It is established that out of the 388 products the base prices of 293 (259+34) products were increased by him inspite of the rate reduction to maintain the pre rate reduction prices. Accordingly the Respondent has charged increased base prices on the above products thus indulging in profiteering.
Respondent has vehemently argued that he had no control on the fixing of base prices as well as the MRPs as both of them were fixed by the manufacturer M/S L'oreal India Pvt. Ltd. through it's software - Held that:- The discounts provided to the customers after GST rate reduction are required to be considered as the on going existing promotional schemes during the pre-GST rate reduction period. The argument of the Respondent that the prices were controlled by the manufacturer does not hold good in as much as he is registered supplier under the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 and is bound to follow the notification dated 14.11.2017 to pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction. The legal obligation imposed upon him cannot be .ignored only because he is not the manufacturer who controls the prices, as he is accountable as a supplier to pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction. There is no evidence to show that he had corresponded with the manufacturer for decrease in the base prices on account of the GST rate reduction. Hence it is apparent that the Respondent inspite of his legal obligation has enhanced the prices of all the 293 products and resorted to profiteering.
It is also established from the above facts that the Respondent had issued incorrect invoices while selling all the above products to his customers as he had not correctly shown the basic prices which he should have legally charged from them. The Respondent had also compelled them to pay additional GST on the increased prices though the incorrect tax invoices which would have otherwise resulted in further benefit to the customers which he had failed to pass on - It is also established from the record that the Respondent has deliberately and consciously acted in contravention of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 by issuing incorrect invoices which is an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the above Act and hence he is liable for imposition of penalty under the above Section read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017. But, a fresh notice may be given to him to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him.
Decided against respondent.
-
2019 (1) TMI 21 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - supply of the product “Paint (AP Apex Classic WT 10 LT (HSN Code 3209)) - benefit of reduction in the rate of tax of GST at the time of implementation of the GST - contravention of provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Held that:- It is evident that the Respondent has increased the base price of the product from ₹ 1855.05/- to ₹ 1859.55/- resulting in an increase of ₹ 4.50/-. In this context, it is apparent that the post-GST price before discount has been reduced from ₹ 2159/- to ₹ 1927/-. Also, the discount offered has been reduced from ₹ 75.57/- to ₹ 67.45/- i.e. by ₹ 8.12/- and hence post-GST, there is increase in the base price of ₹ 4.50/-. The increase in the base price is on account of the reduction in the discount. It is also revealed that the reduction in discount doesn't amount to profiteering as the same was offered from his profit margin by the Respondent and doesn't not form part of the base price and therefore, the Respondent cannot be held guilty under Section 171 of the Act.
Respondent has not contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - application dismissed.
....
|
