View All Due Date - IT || Due Date - IT || Due Date - GST || Filing of SPL-01/ SPL-02 where payment made through GSTR 3B and other cases || Advisory on filing of Amnesty applications under Section 128A of the CGST Act || Due Date - GST || System Validation for Filing of Refund Applications on GST Portal for QRMP Taxpayers || Due Date - GST || Order u/s 119(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act,1961 regarding processing of returns filed u/s 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 beyond the prescribed time limit || Barring of GST Return on expiry of three years || Advisory regarding non-editable of auto-populated liability in GSTR-3B || Due Date - IT || Due Date - IT || Due Date - IT || Extension of due date for furnishing return of income for the Assessment Year 2025-26 || CBDT extends date of filing of Income Tax Returns (ITRs) due for filing by 31st July 2025 to 15th September 2025 || Due Date - GST || Due Date - GST || Attention - Advisory on reporting values in Table 3.2 of GSTR-3B || Due Date - IT || Advisory on Appeal withdrawal with respect to Waiver scheme || Due Date - GST || Due Date - GST || Due Date - GST || Updates in Refund Filing Process for Recipients of Deemed Export ||

GST

No profiteering if reduction in base price is more than additional eligible ITC—NAA

Case of Smt. Mandalika Sakunthala Vs M/s Fabindia Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority)

Date of Order—16.11.2018

Facts of the case— the applicants alleged that Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax, when she had bought `Bathing Bar` and `Instant Drink Powder 50gms. It was also alleged by the Applicant that these products were being sold at the MRP of 95/- and 50/- respectively, which had 12.5% Excise Duty & 14.5% Value Added Tax (VAT), total 27% incidence of tax, built in the MRP till 30.06.2017 and after the implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, when the rate of tax was fixed as 18% on the above products they were still being sold at the above MRP by increasing their base prices. She had further alleged that the Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, action should be taken against him.

Decision of National Anti-profiteering Authority— In this case actual pre-GST tax rate on the above products was not 27% (12.5% Excise Duty + 14.5% VAT), as had been mentioned by the Applicant No. 1 in her applications, but it was 14.5% (Nil Central Excise Duty+ 14.5% VAT) in the case of “Bathing Bar” and 16.5 % (2% Central Excise Duty + 14.5% VAT) in the case of “Instant Drink Powder 50 Gms.”

It is also revealed that the Respondent was procuring both the above products on interstate basis from their sole vendors and this tax liability had increased by 3.5% post GST from 14.5% to 18% w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and therefore, he had suffered loss on the supply of both the products in question. It is further revealed that the base price of these products had been reduced by the Respondent to maintain the same MRP (Pre GST MRP) inspite of the increase in the tax rate of both the above products. The anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Tax Act, 2017 are not attracted in the present case.

Since the reduction in the base prices of these products is more than the additional ITC eligible thereon, the allegation of profiteering is not established.