Online Export Import Data Search

Complete Training Video : Click Here

The unfortunate consequences of GST anti-profiteering rules.

Date: 06-12-2017
Subject: The unfortunate consequences of GST anti-profiteering rules
With a chairman for the National Anti-Profiteering Authority in place, the anti-profiteering methodology is the next key thing to watch out for.

An announcement to this effect can be expected in a few weeks, said an Economic Times report, adding that India may adopt a product-specific approach similar to that of Australia to ensure that the full benefit of price reductions due to the goods and services tax (GST) is passed on to consumers.

This means that when the authority gets any complaint, it will examine the input tax credit flowing into a product and the resultant reduction in total tax.

While that sounds simple, just as GST did when it was proposed, enforcing it will be a tall order especially because anti-profiteering has not been a success in most countries where implemented.

Not only has it crimped corporate profitability, but critics say it could result in tax terrorism. It’s no wonder then that businessmen are worried about witch-hunting by taxmen under the garb of anti-profiteering.

Australia, Malaysia, Canada and New Zealand are some countries where anti-profiteering or similar provisions have been put in place. Among these, Australia was the first one to enact it in 2000 and Malaysia in 2015.

In Australia, GST implementation had a three-year transition period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2002. During this period, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had to oversee pricing responses to GST. It was also entrusted with the responsibility to act against businesses whose price changes were not in tandem with GST rate changes.

The country followed “one dollar” methodology, where if a company is making a dollar worth savings on a product, then it has to be passed on to the end-consumer. Secondly, a pricing rule was also put in place which stated that no price increase should be more than 10%, say tax experts.

Apart from that, in an attempt to check price exploitation, large corporates with revenue exceeding $100 million (around Rs645 crore) could voluntarily submit a signed statement indicating their commitment to comply with guidelines. Also, a national GST price hotline was established to deal with consumer complaints.

In Malaysia, the net profit margin methodology was adopted. The anti-profiteering rules set net profit margin as on 1 January 2015 as a benchmark to gauge whether benefits have been passed on or not. While this worked well in sectors like retail, food and beverages, the overall impact was not very significant, add tax experts.

“Both countries followed different methodologies, but anti-profiteering failed to yield the desired results. Such provision can work only when things like raw material costs do not swing sharply. There are many such variables and they would differ from one company to another, adding to the implementation challenge. In India, though the Council has said it would monitor changes in prices for two years, the investigations may take much longer,” cautioned Abhishek Jain, partner (indirect tax) at EY India.

In Malaysia, the anti-profiteering clause has been a complete disaster given the lack of preparation. On the other hand, companies in Australia were aware a year in advance, but both could not avoid the flood of litigation.

According to some tax experts, the Australian commission considered more than 51,000 complaints, investigated nearly 7,000 matters and obtained refunds of around $21 million on behalf of nearly two million consumers.

In Malaysia, authorities inspected more than 188,000 business premises and investigated around 640 cases within the first month of the GST regime, they added.

India could meet the same fate. In fact, given its more complex GST structure than peers, the number of complaints could be much higher.

Since the movement in prices is also a function of the demand-supply scenario, raw material prices and competitive pressures, simpler anti-profiteering rules and methodology that make it easy for businesses to comply, would help.

If not, then just as in the case of filing GST returns, it’s very likely that it would be mired in a sea of litigation.

Source: livemint.com

Get Sample Now

Which service(s) are you interested in?
 Export Data
 Import Data
 Exim Help

What is New?

Date: 12-02-2018
Notification No. 26/2018-Customs
seeks to further amend the notification No. 50/2017- Customs, dated the 30th June 2017 so as to reduce the Basic Customs Duty on motorcycles falling under tariff heading 8711.

Date: 06-02-2018
Notification No. 25/2018-Customs
Seeks to increase BCD tariff rate on Chana (Chickpeas), [Tariff item 0713 20 0] from 30% to 40% by invoking section 8A (1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and accordingly, the effective rate of BCD on Chana (Chickpeas), will also be 40%.

Date: 06-02-2018
Notification No. 24/2018-Customs
Seeks to increase import duty on all types of sugar under tariff head 1701, [Raw sugar, Refined or White sugar, Raw sugar if imported by bulk consumer] from the present 50% to 100% (Tariff rate) with immediate effect and without an end date.

Date: 05-02-2018
DGFT Notification No. 50/2015-2020
Amendment in import policy condition of pepper classified under Chapter 09 of ITC (HS), 2017—Schedule-1(Import Policy)

Date: 05-02-2018
DGFT Notification No. 49/2015-2020
Updation in Para 4 (A) of General Notes Regarding Import Policy of ITC (HS), 2017, Schedule – I (Import Policy)

Date: 05-02-2018
Public Notice No. 58/2015-2020
Amendment in chapter 2 of the Handbook of Procedure (2015-2020)

Date: 02-02-2018
DGFT Notification No. 48/2015-2020
Export Policy of Onions- Removal of Minimum Export Price (MEP)

Date: 02-02-2018
Notification No. 23/2018-Customs
Seeks to further amend notification No. 27/2011- Customs dated the 1st March, 2011 so as to prescribe ‘Nil’ rate of export duty on Electrodes of a kind used for furnaces

Date: 02-02-2018
Notification No. 22/2018-Customs
Seeks to further amend notification No. 57/2017- Customs dated the 30th June, 2017 so as to prescribe effective rates of BCD on specified parts of cellular mobile phones and other electronic goods

Date: 02-02-2018
Notification No. 21/2018-Customs
Seeks to exempt Additional Duty of Customs (CVD), in lieu of Additional Duty of Excise (Road and Infrastructure Cess) levied under clause 110 of the Finance Bill, 2018

Exim Guru Copyright © 1999-2018 Exim Guru. All Rights Reserved.
The information presented on the site is believed to be accurate. However, InfodriveIndia takes no legal responsibilities for the validity of the information.
Please read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before you use this Export Import Data Directory.


C/o Infodrive India
E-2, 3rd Floor, Kalkaji Main Road
New Delhi - 110019, India
Phone : 011 - 40703001