Anti-Profiteering — Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017— The applicant intimated that the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax on India Gate Basmati Rice had not been passed on to the consumers as its MRP had been increased, and hence margin of profit had also been increased by the Respondent. The application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering on 13.12.2017 and forwarded to the Director General Safeguards (DGSG) for detailed investigation on 18.12.2017. The DGSG reported that the tax rate on the packed India Gate Basmati Rice had been increased from Nil to 5% after the implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, due to which ITC had become available to the Respondent. The DGSG had intimated that the ITC available was insufficient to discharge the GST liability and thus, the balance amount of GST had been paid in cash during the above period and since the ITC available was less than the GST liability on the outward supplies, there was no net benefit of ITC which could had been passed on to the consumers and, therefore, there was no violation of the provisions of section 171 of above Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Anti-Profiteering Authority observed that due to the imposition of the GST 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. The Authority held that there is no substance in the application as there is no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the Act and hence the same is dismissed.—Kumar Gandharv Versus Krbl Ltd. [2018] 2 TAXLOK.COM 082 (NTPA)