ANTI-PROFITEERING AND GST -? TO!
Jayesh Gogri has experience of more than two decades in Indirect taxes and specializes in all major areas of indirect taxes such as Goods and Services Tax, Custom Duty, Central Excise, Service Tax and VAT. He is a combination of premium advisor as well as an academician. He possesses rich experience in providing solutions to various national as well as international brands in relation to corporate retainerships, opinions, refunds, representations, tax reviews, internal audit, structuring, optimizing, litigation, refunds, reviews, ERP implementation and training. He has been delivering lectures through ICAI, ICSI, Organization of Tax Consultants, IIM, NACIN, CBIC and various Trade & Industrial Organization across India
Gist of Case Law
M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd
Complaint against Maruti Suzuki alleging, benefit of the reduction in tax rate not passed at the time of implementation of GST, thereby contravening the provisions relating to Anti-Profiteering. Though after investigation it was found that the base price of products were not increased in GST Regime, therefore the application stood dismissed
M/S. N.P. Foods (Franchisee M/S Subway India)
Allegation that the supply of products from the Respondent was at an increased price even though there was a reduction in the rate of tax from 18% to 5%. But after scrutiny NAPA rejected the allegation and dismissed the application
Pyramid Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
Imposition of penalty on Builder for not passing GST ITC benefit to customers/ home buyers
Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
In absence of any specific evidences of profiteering charges of profiteering are liable to be dropped
Kunj Lub Marketing Pvt. Ltd
Imposition of penalty on the supplier on denial of passing the benefit of ITC to his customers
Impact Clothing Co.
Where there was no reduction in the rate of tax on product itself and also the base price was not increased, the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable.
M/s. Harish Bakers & Confectioners Pvt. Ltd.
Even though the respondent had not received any kind of discount from his distributors, he cannot contend on the fact that he could not charge a reduced price because of such a denial of discount