TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1490
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax invoice dated 07.11.2017 was issued to him for an amount of Rs. 14,852/- by M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai (here-in-after referred to as the Supplier). At the time of delivery, another invoice dated 29.11.2017 was issued by the Supplier for an amount of Rs. 14,152/-. The Applicant had alleged that he had paid an amount of Rs. 14,852/- to the Respondent and the excess amount charged should have been refunded to him. The Applicant had further alleged that by not refunding the differential amount, the Respondent was resorting to profiteering which amounted to the contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. The above application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering and was refe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount to profiteering. The DGAP had further concluded that the excess amount of GST paid by the Applicant @ 28% at the time of placing order was to be refunded by the Respondent as the same had been reduced to 18% at the time of delivery on 29.11.2017. Therefore, the DGAP had recommended that there had been no profiteering by the Supplier and hence there was no violation of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. 4. The above report was considered by the Authority in its sitting held on 27.03.2018 and it was ordered that the DGAP be asked to procure the details from the Respondent as to how many such cases were there in which at the time of booking of the orders on his e-commerce platform, the rate of GST was higher than the rate of GST at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ducts directly for sale to the buyers and he was charging commission for the same. He had also stated that the excess amount of Rs. 700/- of GST charged from the Applicant had already been refunded to him by the Supplier through the Respondent on 18.1.2018. He had further denied allegation of profiteering made against him on the ground that he was not the Supplier of the Almirah and hence he had not violated the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act. 6. The DGAP had further informed vide his letter dated 18.6.2018 that the discount of Rs. 500/- which was subsequently withdrawn by the Supplier was given out of the profit margin by the Supplier and hence it could not be treated as an act of profiteering. He had also informed that the Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad been done by the Supplier while executing the order placed by the Applicant. It is also apparent from the record that the Supplier had not changed the base price of Rs. 11,993.75/- which was prevalent at the time of booking on 4.11.2018, at the time of delivery on 29.11.2017. Hence the Supplier has not resorted to profiteering by increasing his base price or appropriated the excess amount of tax charged from the Applicant and hence the allegation of violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act is not established. 8. It is also apparent that the Respondent was not the Supplier/manufacturer of the Almirah and was only an agent who had offered his platform to the Supplier to sell the Almirah by charging commission, and was a....