TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, it is clear that the Supplier had charged correct rates of GST which were prevalent at the time of placing of the order and the supply of the Almirah through the above two invoices, therefore, no illegality had been done by the Supplier while executing the order placed by the Applicant. The Supplier has not resorted to profiteering by increasing his base price or appropriated the excess amount of tax charged from the Applicant and hence the allegation of violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act is not established - It is also apparent that the Respondent was not the Supplier/manufacturer of the Almirah and was only an agent who had offered his platform to the Supplier to sell the Almirah by charging commission, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to as the Supplier). At the time of delivery, another invoice dated 29.11.2017 was issued by the Supplier for an amount of ₹ 14,152/-. The Applicant had alleged that he had paid an amount of ₹ 14,852/- to the Respondent and the excess amount charged should have been refunded to him. The Applicant had further alleged that by not refunding the differential amount, the Respondent was resorting to profiteering which amounted to the contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. The above application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering and was referred to the Director General of Safeguards (DGSG) now re-designated as Director General Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), vide the minutes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of GST paid by the Applicant @ 28% at the time of placing order was to be refunded by the Respondent as the same had been reduced to 18% at the time of delivery on 29.11.2017. Therefore, the DGAP had recommended that there had been no profiteering by the Supplier and hence there was no violation of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. 4. The above report was considered by the Authority in its sitting held on 27.03.2018 and it was ordered that the DGAP be asked to procure the details from the Respondent as to how many such cases were there in which at the time of booking of the orders on his e-commerce platform, the rate of GST was higher than the rate of GST at the time of delivery of the goods and whether any comprehensive system of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the same. He had also stated that the excess amount of ₹ 700/- of GST charged from the Applicant had already been refunded to him by the Supplier through the Respondent on 18.1.2018. He had further denied allegation of profiteering made against him on the ground that he was not the Supplier of the Almirah and hence he had not violated the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act. 6. The DGAP had further informed vide his letter dated 18.6.2018 that the discount of ₹ 500/- which was subsequently withdrawn by the Supplier was given out of the profit margin by the Supplier and hence it could not be treated as an act of profiteering. He had also informed that the Respondent was not a Supplier and hence the refund of excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Supplier while executing the order placed by the Applicant. It is also apparent from the record that the Supplier had not changed the base price of ₹ 11,993.75/- which was prevalent at the time of booking on 4.11.2018, at the time of delivery on 29.11.2017. Hence the Supplier has not resorted to profiteering by increasing his base price or appropriated the excess amount of tax charged from the Applicant and hence the allegation of violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act is not established. 8. It is also apparent that the Respondent was not the Supplier/manufacturer of the Almirah and was only an agent who had offered his platform to the Supplier to sell the Almirah by charging commission, and was also not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral such cases in which the e-platforms had collected excess GST from the buyers and have not refunded the same after the tax was reduced on various products on 15.11.2017. Therefore, it has already directed the Director General of Audit, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vide letter No. NAA/2018/DO/08/211 dated 24.5.2018 to audit the major e-platforms and submit it's findings to the Authority. 11. Based on the above facts the allegation of profiteering made by the Applicant against the Respondent as well as the Supplier is not established and hence the present application is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to all the parties free of cost. File of this case be consign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
