TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent for the months of September, 2017, October, 2017 and November, 2017 that the ITC available to him as a percentage of the total value of taxable supplies was between 2.69% to 3% whereas the GST on the outward supply of his product was 5% which was not sufficient to discharge his tax liability. Moreover in this case the rate of tax has been increased from 0% to 5% instead of reduction in the same. Therefore, there appears to be no reason for treating the price fixed by the Respondent as violation of the provisions of the Anti-Profiteering clause. Due to the imposition of the GST on the above product as well as the increase in the purchase price of the paddy there does not appear to be denial of benefit of ITC as has been alleged by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. He had also reported that whether the benefit of ITC had been passed on to the consumers, had to be examined in case there was any net benefit of ITC to the Respondent after the GST liability on the outward taxable supplies had been discharged by him and if the ITC was available with him it was to be passed on to the consumers in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. He had further reported that the India Gate brand name was not registered by the Respondent and hence he was not paying GST on the outward supply of Basmati Rice and this product had been made taxable vide Notification No. 28/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure-ll) since then the Respondent was paying GST @ 5%. 4. The DGSG had also intimated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13869583 2.69 13869584 11958969 Nov., 2017 770088225 39052815 22514290 2.92 22514290 16538525 Total 1427665025 72023606 40630089 2.85 41179660 30843946 5. The above report was considered by the Authority in its sitting held on 20.03.2018 and it was decided to hear the Applicant as well as the Respondent on 11.04.2018. Sh. Anoop Aggarwal General Manager and Ms. Medini Aggarwal appeared for the Respondent on the given date however the Applicant did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following table to support their case:- Particulars per 10 Kg. 01.06.17 01.07.17 17.07.17 01.09.17 26.09.17 04.10.17 02.04.18 Pre GST MRP Post GST MRP Before Tax Incidence on Branded Rice After Tax Incidence on Branded Rice India Gate Mini Mogra 10 Kg l BOPP Bag 570 570 540 555 540 585 570 6. We have carefully heard the Respondent and also perused the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the MRP of his product from ₹ 540/- to ₹ 585/- which constituted increase of 8.33% keeping in view the increase in the purchase price. Therefore, due to the imposition of the GST on the above product as well as the increase in the purchase price of the paddy there does not appear to be denial of benefit of ITC as has been alleged by the Applicant as there has been no net benefit of ITC available to the Respondent which could be passed on to the consumers. Accordingly there is no substance in the application filed by the above Applicant as there is no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence the same is dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the Applicant and the Respondent free of cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
