Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
AT held that the respondent (sole proprietor/distributor) contravened section 171, CGST Act by failing to pass on the benefit of a GST rate reduction on cosmetic products. The statutory presumption in favour of the investigating authority was not rebutted for lack of cogent, unambiguous evidence, notwithstanding contractual provisions allocating pricing discretion between the distributor and manufacturer. Consequently the respondent is directed to remit Rs. 3,31,879 with interest at 18% p.a. calculated from the date of collection of the excess (1.4.2018-31.12.2018) to the Central/State consumer welfare fund under section 57 within three months, failing which recovery shall be effected by the jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner.
AT held that the respondent (sole proprietor/distributor) contravened section 171, CGST Act by failing to pass on the benefit of a GST rate reduction on cosmetic products. The statutory presumption in favour of the investigating authority was not rebutted for lack of cogent, unambiguous evidence, notwithstanding contractual provisions allocating pricing discretion between the distributor and manufacturer. Consequently the respondent is directed to remit Rs. 3,31,879 with interest at 18% p.a. calculated from the date of collection of the excess (1.4.2018-31.12.2018) to the Central/State consumer welfare fund under section 57 within three months, failing which recovery shall be effected by the jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
