Saturday, October 20, 2018

google plus
  • Helpline numbers for Amritsar accident: #Manawala station- Rly -73325, BSNL - 0183-2440024; Power Cabin ASR-Rly - 72820, BSNL - 0183-2402927; Vijay Sahota,SSE: 7986897301 and Vijay Patel, SSE: 7973657316

Posted at: Jan 14, 2018, 2:14 AM; last updated: Jan 14, 2018, 2:14 AM (IST)

Shoe store gets SDM notice for not passing on GST benefit to customer

Shoe store gets SDM notice for not passing on GST benefit to customer

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 13

Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Central) Virat has issued summons to the owner of a footwear store for not passing on the benefit of the reduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) to a consumer under the anti-profiting rules.

The notice has been issued for January 15 for violating an order passed by District Magistrate (DM) Ajit Balaji Joshi under Section 144 of the CrPC banning the sale of products without passing on the tax reduction benefits to the consumers under law.

The Centre had issued the anti-profiting notification in November last year.

Chandigarh was the first in the country where the DM issued an order under Section 144 for ensuring the compliance of the notification.

Sources said the notice had been issued on a complaint filed by an advocate, Ajay Jagga, against Metro Shoes Limited, Sector 17. In the compliant, Jagga sought punishment for the firm under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for violation/disobedience of the prohibitory orders issued by the DM by passing on the benefit to him.

Jagga stated that he had purchased a shoe polish (MRP Rs 99) from the shop on December 20 last year. He said he was charged 28 per cent GST on the item even as the levy on the product was reduced to 18 per cent. Jagga said the GST Council, in its meeting held in Guwahati on 10 November last year, had reduced the tax on the product and it was notified by the government. He said instead of charging Rs 91.26 (after reduction of the tax), the shop owner took Rs 99 from him. The extra amount he was made to pay was illegal.

Under the Section 188, violation of Section 144 invites a punishment of simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with a fine which may extend to Rs 200 or with both.


All readers are invited to post comments responsibly. Any messages with foul language or inciting hatred will be deleted. Comments with all capital letters will also be deleted. Readers are encouraged to flag the comments they feel are inappropriate.
The views expressed in the Comments section are of the individuals writing the post. The Tribune does not endorse or support the views in these posts in any manner.
Share On