Anti-profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act - requirement to pass on benefit of additional input tax credit - DGAP investigation and report under Rule 133 of the CGST Rules - reinvestigation and verification of report where material discrepancies exist - obligation to reconcile project-wise CENVAT/ITC and booking/consideration recordsDGAP finding of profiteering - requirement to pass on benefit of additional input tax credit - DGAP had calculated profiteering in respect of the two projects but the report is not finally accepted as complete by the Commission. - HELD THAT: - The Commission noted the DGAP's quantified findings of alleged profiteering in respect of the 'Omkar 1973 Worli' and 'The Summit Business Bay Andheri' projects as set out in the DGAP report. However, rather than finally adjudicating the merits of those quantified findings, the Commission examined the DGAP report and identified outstanding factual and documentary gaps which prevent acceptance of the report in its present form. Consequently, the Commission did not record a final adjudicative acceptance of the profiteering quantification at this stage. [Paras 8]DGAP's reported profiteering figures are recorded but not finally accepted due to incompleteness of the investigation.Reconciliation of saleable area and project data - reinvestigation under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules - Discrepancy in total saleable area figures requires reconciliation and further investigation by the DGAP. - HELD THAT: - The Commission observed conflicting saleable area figures in the DGAP report and in an annexure relied upon by the respondent. This discrepancy is material to the computation and therefore must be reconciled. The DGAP is directed to make further enquiries and reconcile the differing area figures before finalising findings. [Paras 8]DGAP directed to reconcile the difference in saleable area and re-investigate the projects.Pass on of ITC to landowners and onward to buyers - verification with jurisdictional Commissioner - Whether ITC benefit is required to be passed on in respect of flats attributable to landowners and whether DGAP must compute any profiteering in respect of those flats is remanded for verification. - HELD THAT: - The Commission noted that landowners in the 'Omkar 1973 Worli' project had entitlement to sell flats and that the DGAP had not computed profiteering for such flats; DGAP had sought verification from the jurisdictional Commissioner but did not record the outcome. The Commission directed the DGAP to reinvestigate and verify whether any ITC benefit was required to be passed on to the landowners for onward passing to their buyers, and to record findings accordingly. [Paras 8]DGAP directed to reinvestigate and verify landowners' position and compute any required ITC pass-on if applicable.Project-wise bifurcation of CENVAT/ITC between rehab and sale buildings - duty to obtain complete documentary evidence from respondent - DGAP must obtain bifurcated CENVAT/ITC figures for the rehab and sale buildings and record findings after verification. - HELD THAT: - The Commission observed that the respondent furnished consolidated CENVAT/ITC figures certified by a chartered accountant but did not bifurcate figures between rehab and sale buildings. As the allocation affects the calculation of benefit to be passed on, DGAP is directed to obtain the bifurcated figures from the respondent and incorporate the verified data into a complete report. [Paras 8]DGAP directed to obtain and verify bifurcated CENVAT/ITC figures and to record findings.Verification of homebuyers' bookings and consideration received - collaboration with jurisdictional Commissioner to verify records - Authenticity of bookings and receipts as provided by the respondent must be verified with the jurisdictional Commissioner and by obtaining missing documents from the respondent. - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that the respondent did not provide complete documentary evidence to verify booking details and consideration received from buyers. DGAP had earlier sought assistance from the jurisdictional Commissionerate. The Commission directed DGAP to obtain necessary details both from the respondent and from the jurisdictional Commissioner and to include verified findings in a revised report. [Paras 8]DGAP directed to verify authenticity of homebuyers' list and consideration receipts with the respondent and jurisdictional Commissioner and to report findings.Final Conclusion: The Commission recorded the DGAP's provisional quantification of alleged profiteering but found the DGAP report to be incomplete on several material factual points; accordingly the DGAP is directed to re-investigate both projects addressing specified discrepancies and verifications and to submit a complete report after obtaining required information from the respondent and the jurisdictional Commissioner.

Proactive disclosure under Section 4(2) of the RTI Act - suo-motu disclosure of audited accounts and annual reports on website - disclosure of broad income and expenditure of a public authority - open governance and public interest in access to informationDisclosure of broad income and expenditure of a public authority - right to information and disclosure of accounts - Complainant entitled to receive broad details of GSTN's income and expenditure. - HELD THAT: - The Commission, after hearing the parties, accepted that the information sought concerning broad income and expenditure falls within the ambit of information that a public authority should furnish. While the respondent raised practical constraints about voluminous data and invited inspection, the Commission found that the public interest in transparency of the GST Network requires disclosure of broad income and expenditure information rather than withholding on the ground of volume or inconvenience. The Commission therefore directed the respondent to furnish the broad details of income and expenditure to the complainant within 15 days, treating the request as limited to summary financial particulars rather than an insistence on exhaustive transactional data.Respondent directed to furnish the broad details of income and expenditure to the complainant within 15 days.Proactive disclosure under Section 4(2) of the RTI Act - suo-motu disclosure of audited accounts and annual reports on website - open governance and public interest in access to information - Public authority should proactively publish broad financial information, audited statements and annual reports on its website. - HELD THAT: - Relying on the mandate of proactive disclosure and judicial authorities emphasising that information required under Section 4 should be easily accessible and, where possible, available electronically, the Commission observed that voluntary, suo-motu publication minimizes the public's need to invoke the RTI Act. Considering the significance of the GST Network and the respondent's unclear position about published accounts, the Commission advised and directed the respondent authority to post broadly the income and expenditure details, audited statements of accounts and the annual report on its website for the larger public interest and convenience of stakeholders.Respondent advised and directed to suo-motu disclose broad income and expenditure, audited statements of accounts and annual report on its website.Final Conclusion: Complaint disposed: respondent directed to supply broad income and expenditure details to the complainant within 15 days and advised/directed to publish broad financial information, audited accounts and annual reports on the public authority's website in the interest of transparency and open governance.

Proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act - Obligation to furnish existing records and not to collate non existent information - Supervisory powers of the Central Information Commission under Section 25 - Transparency and accountability through suo moto disclosureProactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act - Obligation to furnish existing records and not to collate non existent information - Adequacy of information furnished by the CPIO/GSTN in response to the RTI application and requirement of suo motu disclosure under Section 4. - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that the information furnished by the respondent was sketchy and that GSTN's website contained limited disclosures, while acknowledging that the RTI Act does not require a public authority to collect or collate information not already in its records. Reliance was placed on the principle that a public authority must provide access to information that is available and existing, but is not obliged to create new records or draw inferences. Notwithstanding that limitation, the Commission emphasised the normative duty under Section 4(2) for public authorities to proactively publish as much information as possible through means including the internet, so that recourse to RTI is minimised. The Commission also noted supervisory and remedial powers conferred upon it (including powers under Section 25) to ensure compliance with the Act and cited judicial authorities underscoring the need for open governance, publication of rules, procedures and disclosure of information on websites, and the role of the Commission in promoting compliance. Applying these principles to the facts, the Commission expressed concern at the incomplete and formative state of GSTN's disclosures and advised the respondent to make the requisite suo motu disclosures to ensure transparency, objectivity and accountability.The Commission recorded that sketchy information had been furnished, directed that the respondent should suo motu disclose the information required under Section 4 to ensure transparency and accountability, and disposed of the appeal.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed. The Commission finds the information provided to be sketchy and, invoking its supervisory role, advises the respondent (GSTN) to promptly comply with suo motu disclosure obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act to enhance transparency and minimise the need for RTI applications.