Samsung being under the tax radar for long has finally been penalized with the whooping sum of Rs. 3.7 million for not passing on the tax benefits to the customers. Samsung is the star electronic manufacturing brand prevailing in India with not less than 50% current user base.
The government has recently announced the rate cut on the sales of 32 inches LED TV from earlier 28% to the current 18%. The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA)
GST council in its latest meeting
“The prices of products affected by the rate reduction were not decreased commensurately. Hence, it was a violation of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act 2017,” the NAA said in its order.
The order further added that an increase in the cost (if any) should have been noted before 31 December 2018 and prices would have been increased simultaneously. However, it is not valid that the company has increased the prices on the intervening night of 31 Dec 2018 and January 1, 2019 (at the time of rate cut announcement). Following the announcement of rate reduction company increased the prices of its gadgets. The act is not worthy to be called a coincidence and thus it is proved that the respondent had increased prices for appropriating the benefit of tax reduction, the order said.
NAA further assured that the profiteered amount by the company is duly deposited to the consumer welfare funds (state and central level) gave instructions for the same to central GST and State GST departments
Defending itself, Samsung said that the case is uncertain as the applicants have duly submitted screenshots of online prices without the proof of actual supply. Samsung added that the TV model was being sold on Amazon.in (the online market). That the company was not the supplier umbo Distributors Pvt Ltd and EP Electronic Paradise Pvt Ltd were.
NAA mechanism involves three stages of investigation and has a state screening committee for local complaints and the standing committee for National level compliance. The investigation is done by the directorate general of anti-profiteering and inquiry is made by the decision-making body, the NAA.
Nestle and Johnson & Johnson are other such brands that have already challenged the orders of NAA in the high court and got a temporary stay.