TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % and when the post-GST purchase invoice dated 29.09.2017 and sale invoice dated 14.10.2017 issued by the Respondent were compared, it was evident that the Respondent had not passed on the burden of the input GST paid @ 45% amounting to ₹ 2,88,661.95/- to the Applicant due to the reason that he was eligible to claim ITC on this amount. It is also clear that there was increase in the ITC which the Respondent could avail in the post-GST era as compared to the pre-GST era and the pre-GST and post-GST sale invoices issued by the Respondent revealed that the base price charged from the above Applicant had been reduced as the benefit of ITC was passed on by the Respondent to the Applicant No. 1. Therefore, the allegation that the Applicant had not been given the benefit of ITC by the Respondent was not proved. The provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 have not been contravened in the present case - the application filed by the Applicant No. 1 requesting for action against the Respondent for violation of the provisions of the Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is not maintainable and hence the same is dismissed - application dismissed. - 18/2018 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o conduct fresh investigation in the case and submit a comprehensive and detailed report as no opportunity of being heard had been granted to the above Applicant by the DGAP during the course of the investigation. 4. In consequence of the order dated 24.04.2018 the DGAP has submitted the present Report dated 17.09.2018 and intimated that vide e-mail dated 09.05.2018, he had asked the Applicant to submit copy of the Tax Invoice of a Car of similar model sold by the Respondent prior to the coming in to force of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. He has also intimated that the above Applicant vide his e-mail dated 16.05.2018 had furnished copy of the Invoice No. AHM/0609 dated 24.06.2017 which showed that the price charged by the Respondent for a similar Car was Rs. He has further intimated that vide e-mails dated 22.05.2018, 05.06.2018, 07.06.2018, 20.06.2018 and letter dated 04.07.2018, he had asked the Respondent to provide the details of the applicable taxes in respect of the Car of the above model which he had purchased before and after the implementation of the GST, however, the Respondent did not respond. The DGAP has also informed that he had issued a Notice under Rule 129 of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht + Insurance 10,528 Dealer's Landed Price 814817 VAT 1,22,223 15 15% of Dealer Landed Price Total 9,37,039 Table B Post GST purchase invoice dated 29.09.2017 Post GST Amount (in Rs.) Rate of Tax Remarks Base Price 6,41,471 GST 2,88,661.95 45 28% GST +17% Cess on Cars longer than 4 mtrs. Dealer's Landed Price 9,30,132.95 Table C Pre GST sale invoice dated 28.04.2017 Pre GST Amount (in Rs.) Dealer's Landed Price (A) 8,14,817 Dealer's Margin (B) 28,589 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RS. 33,089/- (Rs. 28,589/- + FRS. 4,500/-). He has further observed that the reduced profit margin of the Respondent was also evident from the fact that the Respondent's post-GST purchase price was ₹ 6,906.05 less than the pre-GST purchase price [Rs. (-) ₹ 9,30,132.95/-]. He has also informed that the post-GST sale price was ₹ 15,683.50/- less than the pre-GST sale price [Rs. 9,69,916.90/- (-) ₹ 9,54,233.40/-] and therefore, the allegation of profiteering made by the Applicant was not established. The DGAP has further informed that the landed price charged by the Respondent in the post-GST sale invoice dated 14.10.2017 was ₹ 1,73,346/less than the landed price in the pre-GST sale invoice dated 28.04.2017 (FRS. (-) ₹ 6,41,471/-) due to the reason that in the pre-GST period, the credit of Excise Duty, National Contingent Calamity Duty (NCCD), and Cesses etc. was not available to the Respondent as only credit of VAT was admissible while in the postGST period, the Respondent was entitled to claim the ITC of the entire GST paid @ 45%. He has also observed that in case the postGST purchase invoice dated 29.09.2017 and sale invoice dated 14.10.2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... change in tax rate is not sustainable. It is also revealed from the perusal of the record that the profit margin of the Respondent had got reduced from ₹ 28,589/- which he was receiving in the pre-GST period to ₹ 16,621/- in the post-GST period and after taking in to account the discounts of ₹ 4,500/- and ₹ 9,000/-, which the Respondent had received for achieving predefined purchase and sale targets for the above two periods the total post-GST profit margin of the Respondent was ₹ 25,621/- (Rs. 16,621/- + ₹ 9,000/-), which was less than the pre-GST profit margin of ₹ 33,089/- (Rs. 28,589/- + ₹ 4,500/-). It is also apparent that the reduced profit margin was due to the fact that the post-GST purchase price of the Respondent was ₹ 6,906.05 less than the pre-GST purchase price. It is also clear from the record that the postGST sale price charged by the Respondent was ₹ 15,683.50/- less than the pre-GST sale price. The record also reveals that the base price charged by the Respondent in the post-GST sale invoice dated 14.10.2017 was ₹ 1,73,346/- less than the base price in the preGST sale invoice dated 28.04.2017 due to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
