TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of the above Act, It is also apparent that the DGAP has carried out the present investigation w.e.f. 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019. It is also evident that for computing the profiteered amount the DGAP has calculated item-wise profiteering during the pre rate reduction period and calculated the average base price (without GST) of particular item by dividing the total taxable value with the total quantity of that item sold. He has compared the average pre rate reduction base price of the item with the actual selling prices of that item sold during the post reduction period i.e. after 01.01.2019 and assessed the profiteered amount on particular item. The mathematical methodology employed by the DGAP to compute the profiteered amount is correct, appropriate, reasonable and in consonance with the provisions of Section 171 (1) and the same has not been challenged by the Respondent in any of his submissions. Further, the Respondent has not submitted any argument against the charges framed in the DGAP's Report. Therefore there are no basis to differ from the findings of the DGAP that the Respondent had indeed contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 - the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation in respect of an application, filed by the Applicant No. 1, alleging profiteering by the Respondent, in respect of supply of Monitors and TVs of screen size upto 32 inches . The Applicant No. 1 alleged that the Respondent did not reduce the selling price of the Monitors and TVs of screen size upto 32 inches , when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019, vide Notification No. 24/2018 Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2018 and the price of the product was increased by the Respondent and thus the benefit of reduction in GST rate was not passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the price, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. The DGAP in its Report dated 28.02.2020, inter-alia stated that:- (i) The Applicant No. 1 relied upon two invoices issued by the Respondent as per the details contained in Table A below. Table-A S.No. Name of the product supplied Pre GST rate revision on 01.01.2019 Post GST rate revision on 01.01.2019 Difference in Base Price (Rs.) In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 2017. (vi) In response to the Notice dated 08.07.2019, the Respondent submitted desired details vide letters/e-mails dated 19.07.2019, 02.08.2019, 08.11.2019, 23.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and 11.01.2020. (vii) Vide the aforementioned letters/e-mails, the Respondent submitted the following documents/information: a. GSTR-1 GSTR-3B returns for the period December. 2018 to June, 2019. b. Details of invoice-wise outward taxable supplies for the period September, 2018 to June, 2019. c. Copy of Invoices having impacted by GST rate reduction. d. Copy of Finance charges statement. (viii) The DGAP has further stated that the vide e-mail dated 13.01.2020 the Applicant No. 1 was afforded an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential documents/reply furnished by the Respondent on 16.01.2020 to 17.01.2020, which the Applicant did not avail of. (ix) The subject application, the various replies of the Respondent and the documents/evidences on record had been carefully examined. The main issues for determination was whether the rate of GST on the Intex LED TV-3224HD supplied by the Respondent was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 01.01.2019 and if so, whether the bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sr. No. Description Factors Pre Rate Reduction (Before 01.01.2019) Post Rate Reduction (From 01.01.2019) 1. Product Description A TV-3224HD 2. Period B 01.12.2018 to 31.12.2018 3. Total quantity of item sold C 1 4. Total taxable value D 10547.00 5. Average base price (without GST) E=D/C 10547.00 6. GST Rate F 28% 18% 7. Commensurate Selling price (post Rate reduction) G=E*1.18 12445.46 8. Invoice No. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent had increased the base price in six invoices out of 144 invoices raised during the period 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 for the Monitors and TVs of screen size upto 32 inches and the amount of net higher sales realization due to increase in the base price of the impacted good, despite the reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% or in other words, the profiteered amount comes to Rs. 4,699/-. The details of the computation were given in the Annex-12 of the Report. The said profiteered amount had been arrived at by comparing the average of the base price of the Monitors and TVs of screen size upto 32 inches sold during the period 01.09.2019 to 31.12.2019, with the actual invoice-wise base prices of Monitors and TVs of screen size upto 32 inches sold during the period 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019. The excess GST so collected from the recipients, was also included in the aforesaid profiteered amount as the excess price collected from the recipients also included the GST charged on the increased base price. (xv) On the basis of the details of outward supplies of the product submitted by the Respondent, it was observed that the Respondent had supplied the product in the state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount along with applicable interest. The DGAP vide verification Report dated 01.07.2020 has submitted that the Sr. Account Officer, Pay and Account Office, Department of Consumer Affairs has confirmed the receipt of payment of the profiteered amount. 6. Further, vide Order sheet dated 01.10.2020, the Authority directed the DGAP to submit his clarifications on the following issues under Rule 133 (2A) of the CGST Act, 2017:- i. Whether the Respondent has issued only 144 invoices in total during 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019, i.r.o. Monitors TVs of screen size upto 32 inches? ii. Whether the supplier of the Respondent had passed on the benefit of GST rate reduction to the Respondent or not? 7. The DGAP vide letter dated 15.12.2020 has submitted his clarifications on points mentioned in the Order sheet dated 01.10.2020 in which he has stated:- i. That the Respondent had issued 124 invoices in total during 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 in respect of Monitors TVs of the screen size upto 32 inches. However, the Respondent had submitted list of total 144 invoices in reply of notice of the DGAP. During investigation 124 invoices were found impacted by the Notf. No. 24/2018-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 28.02.2020 that the Respondent had increased the base price in six invoices out of 144 invoices raised during the period 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019. Thus the benefit of reduction in the GST rate has not been passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the prices by the Respondent, in terms of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 during the above period. The amount profiteered is determined as Rs. 4,699/-. It has been confirmed by the DGAP that the Respondent has deposited an amount of Rs. 4,699/-, as profiteered amount in the CWFs of the Central and the State Government. The Respondent has also claimed to have deposited an amount of Rs. 1500/- as interest in the CWFs of the Central and the State Government. The DGAP vide letter dated 01.07.2020, has submitted verification report vide which it has been stated that the Sr. Account Officer, Pay and Account Office, Department of Consumer Affairs has confirmed the receipt of payment of the profiteered amount i.e. Rs. 4,699/-. However, the interest amount paid by the Respondent has not been verified by the DGAP. 12. Further, we take note of the fact that the Respondent has not submitted any argument against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2022 has directed that:- I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, the longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Section 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
