Benefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in prices - methodology of computing profiteering by comparison of pre GST and post GST ITC-to-turnover ratios - tripartite supply / joint liability of developer and landowner - calculation and return of profiteered amount with interest - non imposition of retrospective penaltyBenefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in prices - Whether additional benefit of ITC accrued on implementation of GST for the project and whether that benefit was required to be passed on to recipients for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's finding that the ratio of CENVAT/ITC to turnover for the project rose from 1.16% (pre GST) to 6.85% (post GST), giving an additional ITC benefit of 5.69% of turnover. On this basis the Authority held that the benefit of such additional ITC was required to be passed on by way of commensurate reduction in prices under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act for supplies made during the investigation period. The Authority adopted the DGAP's unit wise computations and identified the quantum of benefit attributable to the Respondents and to the Applicant. [Paras 11, 13]Additional ITC benefit of 5.69% was found to have accrued and was required to be passed on for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019; profiteering quantified accordingly.Tripartite supply / joint liability of developer and landowner - procedure to implead other persons for fair enquiry - Whether the developer (Respondent No. 2) could be investigated and held liable along with the landowner (Respondent No. 1) for passing on the ITC benefit. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found the agreements to be tripartite and noted that Respondent No. 2 was a necessary party to the sale agreements; Respondent No. 2 had availed CENVAT/ITC for the whole project (including units allocated to Respondent No.1). Relying on Rule 129(4) the DGAP was justified in issuing notices and impleading the developer for a fair enquiry. Consequently, the developer could not deny liability to pass on the benefit pertaining to the landowner's share. [Paras 12]Respondent No. 2 was properly impleaded and is statutorily liable, along with Respondent No. 1, to pass on the benefit of ITC.Methodology of computing profiteering by comparison of pre GST and post GST ITC-to-turnover ratios - Whether the DGAP's methodology-comparing pre GST and post GST ratios of CENVAT/ITC to turnover to quantify additional ITC benefit-is valid. - HELD THAT: - The Authority upheld the DGAP's approach as a rational and case sensitive mathematical exercise to quantify additional ITC available post GST. It accepted the standard practice of using a pre GST reference period (01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017) to compute an average ratio and comparing it with the post GST period covered by investigation. The Authority rejected contentions that ITC accrual and turnover are unrelated for the purpose of Section 171(1), observing that the computation is to quantify the net additional benefit that must be passed on and that no single universal formula can be prescribed for all fact patterns. [Paras 6, 12, 13]The DGAP's ratio comparison methodology to quantify additional ITC and compute profiteering was affirmed as lawful and appropriate in the facts of the case.Calculation and return of profiteered amount with interest - What orders should be made for refund/return of the profiteered amount and interest, and the timeframe and compliance mechanism. - HELD THAT: - The Authority directed reduction of prices commensurate with ITC benefit, and directed the Respondents to refund/return the quantified profiteered amounts to identified homebuyers/customers along with interest at 18% from the date when the amounts were profiteered until date of payment. The Authority specified the quantified profiteered sums attributable to each Respondent for the investigation period, directed repayment within three months failing which recovery under the CGST Act, and required publication and reporting by jurisdictional commissioners and monitoring by DGAP. The Authority also required the developer to pass on to the landowner the amount determined for the landowner so that the landowner could, in turn, pass it to his recipients. [Paras 15, 17, 19, 20, 21]Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to refund/pass on the determined profiteered amounts with 18% interest within three months; compliance and monitoring directions issued to tax authorities and DGAP.Exclusion of land value from profiteering computation - Whether the value of land should have been excluded from the profiteering computation in this case. - HELD THAT: - The Authority distinguished precedents relied upon by Respondent No.2 where separate agreements/invoices existed for land and construction. In the present case there was a common agreement and taxable turnover considered by the DGAP already reflected abatement for land; therefore the DGAP's calculation (which applied GST @12% after abatement) had effectively excluded land value where appropriate and the respondent's contention to further exclude land value was rejected. [Paras 12]No additional exclusion of land value was warranted; DGAP's treatment was correct given the contractual and invoicing facts.Non imposition of retrospective penalty - Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) could be imposed for profiteering that occurred during 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019. - HELD THAT: - The Authority observed that Section 171(3A) came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, while the profiteering occurred in the earlier period. Consequently, penalty under that provision could not be imposed retrospectively for the investigation period. [Paras 18]Penalty under Section 171(3A) not imposed because the provision post dates the period of violation.Continuing obligation to pass on ITC benefit till issuance of completion certificate - Whether Respondents remain obliged to pass on ITC benefits accruing after the investigation period until issuance of completion certificate. - HELD THAT: - The Authority recorded that the investigation covered only up to 30.09.2019 and directed that Respondents remain liable to pass on any further ITC benefit that becomes available to them until the date of issuance of the completion certificate. The jurisdictional commissioners were directed to ensure compliance and report back; interested buyers were permitted to lodge fresh complaints if remaining benefits were not passed. [Paras 22]Respondents required to pass on any additional ITC benefit accruing up to the date of completion certificate and tax authorities to monitor compliance.Final Conclusion: The Authority accepted the DGAP's findings and methodology, held that an additional ITC benefit of 5.69% accrued for the project for 01.07.2017-30.09.2019, quantified profiteering for Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2, directed refund/return of the profiteered amounts with 18% interest within three months and compliance measures by tax authorities, declined to impose retrospective penalty, and required continuation of passing on any further ITC benefit until issuance of the completion certificate.

Benefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in price - methodology of computation of profiteering - time limit under Rule 133/129 - directory or mandatory - liability under Section 171(1) CGST Act - passing of ITC benefit - penalty under Section 171(3A) - temporal inapplicability - inclusion of GST on profiteered amount - scope of DGAP investigation beyond complainant - exclusion of land value from profiteering computationBenefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in price - Whether additional input tax credit accrued to the Respondent post GST and whether that benefit was passed on to buyers in terms of Section 171(1) CGST Act, 2017. - HELD THAT: - On verification of records and submissions, the Authority accepted DGAP's recalculation showing ITC as a percentage of turnover of 3.02% (pre GST) and 6.66% (post GST), resulting in an additional ITC benefit of 3.64% of turnover. The Authority found that although the Respondent claimed to have passed benefit to a number of buyers, DGAP's verification established confirmed receipt by only 59 buyers and that distribution was neither uniform nor proportionate. The Authority therefore concluded that the Respondent had not passed the additional ITC benefit commensurately to all eligible recipients and upheld DGAP's computation of the total profiteered amount for the Project "Godrej 24".Respondent profiteered by not passing additional ITC benefit; profiteered amount for the project determined as Rs. 6,89,62,698 for the period 1.07.2017 to 31.12.2018.Methodology of computation of profiteering - comparison of ITC ratios pre and post GST - Validity of DGAP's methodology of comparing pre GST CENVAT/ITC to turnover with post GST ITC to turnover as the basis for computing additional ITC benefit and profiteering. - HELD THAT: - The Authority observed that DGAP's ratios were computed from data furnished by the Respondent and verified from Service Tax and GST returns. Noting that methodology must account for project specific facts, the Authority held that the ratio comparison and the mathematical computation adopted by DGAP were appropriate in the facts of this case and are in line with precedents of the Authority for construction services. The Authority therefore endorsed DGAP's methodology for this project.Methodology adopted by DGAP (comparison of pre and post GST ITC ratios) is acceptable and the DGAP computation is upheld.Time limit under Rule 133/129 - directory or mandatory - Whether the anti profiteering proceedings were barred by limitation because DGAP's further investigation under Rule 133(4) extended beyond six months. - HELD THAT: - The Authority treated the timelines in Rules 129(6) and 133(1) as directory, noting absence of penal consequences for delay in the statute and reliance on judicial precedents and principles that procedural time limits without prescribed consequences are not mandatory. The Authority also took into account pandemic related extensions and therefore rejected the limitation objection.Proceedings are not time barred; limitation objection rejected.Fresh bookings post GST - scope of Section 171(1) - applicability to each supply - Whether units booked or negotiated on or after 01.07.2017 (post GST) must be excluded from profiteering computation. - HELD THAT: - The Authority held that the additional ITC benefit accrued to the project as a whole and pertains to every unit; there was no evidence that prices for post GST bookings were reduced commensurately by the Respondent. Section 171(1) requires passing of benefit at the level of each supply and therefore buyers post GST are also entitled to benefit unless evidence shows commensurate reduction in price was given.Post GST bookings are not excluded merely because contracts were entered post GST; objection rejected.Exclusion of land value from profiteering computation - Whether value of land should be excluded from turnover for calculating profiteering in this case. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that land value is excluded from taxable turnover only where there is a separate invoicing/bifurcation for sale of land and supply of construction service. In the present case there was no separate invoicing; abatement for land had already been applied in taxable turnover considered by DGAP. Therefore, DGAP had effectively excluded land value and the Respondent's plea to further exclude land value was not tenable.No additional exclusion of land value; DGAP's treatment is proper and objection rejected.Inclusion of GST on profiteered amount - Whether the profiteered amount was incorrectly inflated by adding GST and whether GST collected on the profiteered amount must be passed on. - HELD THAT: - The Authority agreed with DGAP that GST collected on the portion that ought not to have been collected (the profiteered amount) was borne by recipients and therefore the supplier is obliged to pass on that GST as part of the benefit. Accordingly, the inclusion of GST in the computation of total amount to be returned/passed on was upheld.GST on the profiteered amount is to be treated as part of the benefit to be passed on; DGAP's inclusion is sustained.Scope of DGAP investigation beyond complainant - Whether DGAP's investigation and computation could lawfully extend beyond the specific flat complained of by the Applicant. - HELD THAT: - Relying on Section 171(1)'s obligation to pass benefit to each recipient and the Authority's mandate under Rule 126 to determine procedure, the Authority held that the DGAP and Commissioners are empowered to investigate the supplier's conduct across supplies under the same project/registration and need not be confined to the complainant's unit. The objection that investigation exceeded the application was therefore rejected.DGAP investigation beyond the single complainant's unit is within scope; objection rejected.Procedure and methodology - absence of statutory formula - Whether absence of a statutorily prescribed single formula for computing profiteering renders the proceedings arbitrary. - HELD THAT: - The Authority observed that Section 171(1) provides the substantive obligation and that the Authority had notified 'Procedure and Methodology' under Rule 126; methodology must accommodate project specific facts. Given that DGAP applied a case specific mathematical computation consistent with available rules and the Authority's guidelines, the objection that proceedings are arbitrary for lack of a universal formula was repelled.Absence of a single statutory formula does not invalidate DGAP's methodology; objection rejected.Show cause notice and principles of natural justice - Whether proceedings violated principles of natural justice for want of issuance of show cause notice or opportunity to rebut buyers' responses. - HELD THAT: - The Authority recorded that DGAP issued notices to the Respondent during investigation and the NAA issued notice to show cause on receipt of DGAP's report. The Respondent was given opportunity for personal hearing and to make submissions; DGAP's verification process and the Authority's proceedings afforded the Respondent chance to contest findings. The Authority therefore found no breach of natural justice.No violation of natural justice; procedural fairness maintained and objection rejected.Penalty under Section 171(3A) - temporal inapplicability - Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) CGST Act could be imposed for profiteering during 1.07.2017 to 31.12.2018. - HELD THAT: - Although the Authority found contravention of Section 171(1) for the period under investigation, it noted that Section 171(3A) was inserted w.e.f. 01.01.2020 and was not in force during the profiteering period. Consequently, the Authority held that penalty under Section 171(3A) could not be imposed for the period in question and no notice for penalty was required.Penalty under Section 171(3A) not imposable for the period 1.07.2017 to 31.12.2018; notice for penalty not issued.Remand for further investigation of other projects - Whether DGAP should investigate other projects under the same GST registration. - HELD THAT: - On considering that profiteering was found in the instant project and that similar conduct may exist in other projects under the same GSTIN, the Authority directed DGAP under its powers to investigate all other projects under the Respondent's GST registration which have not been examined, and to submit complete investigation reports. This direction is administrative and amounts to an order remanding or extending investigation for other projects.DGAP directed to investigate other projects under the same GSTIN; further investigation remanded for those projects.Final Conclusion: The Authority accepted DGAP's computation that the Respondent, in Project 'Godrej 24', profiteered by not passing the additional ITC benefit; total profiteered amount determined as Rs. 6,89,62,698 for the period 1.07.2017 to 31.12.2018. The Respondent is directed to pass the benefit with interest @18% to eligible buyers within three months, failing which recovery shall follow; penalty under Section 171(3A) was not imposed as that provision was not in force for the period in question. DGAP is directed to investigate other projects under the same GST registration.

Passing on of benefit of Input Tax Credit - profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - computation of profiteering by comparing pre GST and post GST ITC to turnover ratio - investigation under Rule 129(6) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and remedial orders under Rule 133 - interest on profiteered amount - penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 - continuing availability of ITC until issuance of completion certificate and consequent future passing onPassing on of benefit of Input Tax Credit - profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - computation of profiteering by comparing pre GST and post GST ITC to turnover ratio - The Respondent contravened Section 171 by not passing on the additional benefit of ITC accruing post GST to customers in the project "JKG Palm Court" for the investigation period. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's calculation that ITC available as a percentage of turnover rose from 0.80% (pre GST) to 7.78% (post GST) for the project, producing an additional ITC benefit of 6.98% of turnover. Applying the established methodology of comparing pre GST and post GST ITC to turnover ratios and recalibrating base prices, the DGAP computed the shortfall in passing on this benefit to buyers. The Respondent's unsupported assertion that he had already passed on the benefit was rejected for want of documentary corroboration and because independent verification (emails to a subset of buyers) did not establish comprehensive compliance. On the facts and documentary record for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2020, the Authority found that the Respondent had profiteered by failing to pass the additional ITC benefit to recipients. [Paras 5, 6, 20]Profiteering established: Respondent failed to pass the additional ITC benefit (6.98% of turnover) to buyers for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2020.Investigation under Rule 129(6) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and remedial orders under Rule 133 - interest on profiteered amount - penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 - continuing availability of ITC until issuance of completion certificate and consequent future passing on - Remedial measures to be directed against the Respondent, quantum of amount to be refunded with interest, requirement to reduce prices, notice for penalty for the period from 01.01.2020 and directions for further investigations and compliance monitoring. - HELD THAT: - Relying on the DGAP's computations and its own acceptance of the methodology, the Authority quantified the amount determined as profiteered in respect of the investigated period and imposed corresponding remedial obligations. The Authority determined the total amount profiteered for the project as Rs. 5,14,06,920/- (inclusive of applicable tax), ordered that this amount be refunded/passed on to the eligible recipients and directed the Respondent to reduce prices commensurate with the ITC benefit. Interest at 18% per annum was ordered on the entire profiteered amount from the date each part was profiteered until payment. Because Section 171(3A) was inserted effective 01.01.2020, the Authority directed issuance of a notice for imposition of penalty for the period from 01.01.2020 onwards. The Authority further directed monitoring and enforcement by the jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner, publication of an advertisement to inform affected recipients, submission of compliance reports, and a fresh investigation by the DGAP into other projects under the same GST registration; it also recorded that the Respondent remains liable to pass on any further ITC benefit that accrues until issuance of the completion certificate. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 17, 18]Respondent ordered to refund/pass on Rs. 5,14,06,920/- with interest @18% and reduce prices commensurate with ITC benefit within three months; notice to be issued for penalty w.e.f. 01.01.2020; DGAP and jurisdictional Commissioners directed to ensure compliance and investigate other projects and any future ITC benefits up to completion certificate to be passed on.Final Conclusion: The Authority accepted the DGAP's investigation for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2020, held that M/s JKG Construction Pvt. Ltd. profiteered by not passing on additional ITC benefit (6.98% of turnover), quantified the profiteered amount for the project as Rs. 5,14,06,920/-, directed refund/passing on of that amount with interest @18% within three months, ordered price reduction commensurate with the ITC benefit, issued directions for penalty proceedings from 01.01.2020, and mandated monitoring, publication and further investigation into other projects under the same GST registration.

Benefit of Input Tax Credit - Passing on of ITC under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Commensurate reduction in prices - Computation of profiteering and refund with interest - Availability versus utilization of blocked ITC - Scope of investigation by the DGAP under Rule 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Non-retrospective application of penalty for period prior to 01.01.2020Benefit of Input Tax Credit - Commensurate reduction in prices - Computation of profiteering and refund with interest - Post-GST additional ITC available to the Respondent (1.74% of turnover) was required to be passed on and resulted in profiteering of Rs. 24,78,383/- for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's comparison of pre-GST and post-GST ratios of credit to turnover (0.84% pre-GST; 2.58% post-GST), yielding an increase of 1.74% attributable to the Respondent for project 'U-FARIA'. Applying this increase to the reported base prices and recomputing cum-tax prices produced an excess collection (profiteering) of Rs. 24,78,383/-. The Authority found no error in the DGAP's methodology or computation and determined that the additional ITC benefit should have been passed on to the recipients; accordingly the entire profiteered amount is to be refunded with interest @18% as per Rule 133(3)(b). [Paras 7, 9]Profiteering of Rs. 24,78,383/- (inclusive of 12% GST) established; Respondent directed to refund/pass on this amount to eligible buyers along with interest @18%.Availability versus utilization of blocked ITC - Benefit of Input Tax Credit - ITC provisionally blocked by SGST on 28.03.2019 (for three days within investigation period) could be treated as effectively available and therefore was rightly taken into account in computing profiteering. - HELD THAT: - The DGAP established that the credit in question was blocked provisionally on 28.03.2019 and subsequently unblocked on 08.10.2020. The Authority accepted the DGAP's position that the blockage was temporary and that the credit was, for practical purposes, available during the investigation period; therefore exclusion of the blocked amount from the profiteering computation was not justified. The Authority also noted that ITC may be passed on by various means (credit notes, lowering instalments, etc.) and that the Respondent did not demonstrate that the blocked status prevented him from passing on the benefit. [Paras 3, 8]The ITC amount blocked on 28.03.2019 was validly included in the profiteering computation.Passing on of ITC under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Verification of passing on to recipients - The Applicant (Applicant No.1) received profiteered amount of Rs. 37,107/-; the Respondent's claim of passing on Rs. 9,61,130/- to 90 buyers could not be fully verified by DGAP and therefore could not be accepted for all buyers. - HELD THAT: - DGAP reviewed credit notes submitted by the Respondent and sought confirmations from a sample of buyers. Applicant No.1 confirmed receipt of Rs. 37,107/- (as per DGAP Annexure). Among 55 randomly contacted buyers, only nine responded: five confirmed receipt (totaling Rs. 26,515/-) and four denied receipt. Given the mixed and insufficient confirmations, DGAP could not verify the Respondent's broader claim of passing on ITC to all buyers. Consequently the unverified portion was included in the total profiteering figure. [Paras 3, 5]Applicant No.1's receipt of Rs. 37,107/- is recognised; other claimed pass-throughs not verified and thus not accepted for purposes of reducing the profiteering liability.Scope of investigation by the DGAP under Rule 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Passing on of ITC under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - DGAP was entitled to examine supplies to all recipients (not limited to the applicant) since Section 171(1) mandates that any benefit of ITC on any supply must be passed on to the recipient. - HELD THAT: - The Authority observed that Section 171(1) uses the expression 'any supply', which extends the duty to pass on benefits to all supplies where additional ITC or reduction in tax rate has occurred. Accordingly, the DGAP was within jurisdiction to compute profiteering across the Respondent's supplies covered by the investigation rather than restricting inquiry to the applicant alone. [Paras 8]DGAP's examination of all relevant supplies/customers was justified and within mandate.Investigation of other projects under same GSTIN - Monitoring and future passing on of ITC until issuance of Completion Certificate - Non-retrospective application of penalty for period prior to 01.01.2020 - DGAP directed to investigate other projects under the same GSTIN; Respondent directed to pass on ITC benefit that accrues until issue of Completion Certificate; penalty for contravention under Section 171(3A) not imposed for the investigation period (pre-01.01.2020). - HELD THAT: - Given the finding of profiteering in the instant project, the Authority reasoned there was a likelihood of similar contraventions in other projects under the same GST registration and therefore directed further investigations under Rule 133(5). The Authority also directed the jurisdictional Commissioner to ensure that any future ITC benefit accruing up to the date of issuance of Completion Certificate is passed on in accordance with the methodology adopted and to report compliance. As Section 171(3A) became effective from 01.01.2020, penalty for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 cannot be imposed retrospectively. [Paras 14, 18, 19]DGAP to investigate other projects under same GSTIN; jurisdictional Commissioner to monitor and ensure passing on of future ITC benefits; penalty not imposed for the investigation period.Final Conclusion: The Authority accepted the DGAP's methodology and found that the Respondent profiteered by Rs. 24,78,383/- (inclusive of GST) during 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 by failing to pass on the additional ITC benefit; the Respondent is directed to refund/pass on the amount to eligible shop buyers with interest @18%, comply with publication and reporting directions, and the DGAP is directed to investigate other projects under the same GSTIN while penalties for the investigation period are not imposed retrospectively.

Anti profiteering under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - passing on benefit of input tax credit (ITC) by commensurate reduction in price - computation of profiteered amount by comparison of pre GST and post GST ITC/turnover ratios - refund/return of profiteered amount with interest under Rule 133(3)(b) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - imposition of penalty for denial of ITC benefit with effect from 01.01.2020 under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 - referral of incorrect GST rate charging to jurisdictional tax authorities - investigation of other projects under same GSTIN pursuant to Rule 133(5)Anti profiteering under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - passing on benefit of input tax credit (ITC) by commensurate reduction in price - Whether the Respondent violated Section 171(1) by not passing on benefit of additional ITC to recipients in the Project at Kamayani Nagar for the investigation period - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's finding that the Respondent had availed additional ITC in the post GST period which was not available in the pre GST period. The DGAP's analysis compared ITC/turnover ratios for the pre GST (April 2016-June 2017) and post GST (July 2017-November 2020) periods and found an increase from 0% to 5.92% for the units under investigation. The Authority examined the Respondent's contentions (that the project commenced post GST, that ITC loss in pre GST arose from abatement, and reliance on a CAG study) and rejected them as incorrect or unsupported. Having found that base prices were fixed in the pre GST period and that additional ITC accrued post GST, the Authority held that the Respondent was obliged under Section 171(1) to pass on the ITC benefit by way of commensurate reduction in prices and therefore had violated Section 171(1). [Paras 3, 9, 10, 12]The Respondent contravened Section 171(1) by failing to pass on the benefit of additional ITC to the eligible recipients for the Project at Kamayani Nagar during 01.07.2017 to 30.11.2020.Computation of profiteered amount by comparison of pre GST and post GST ITC/turnover ratios - refund/return of profiteered amount with interest under Rule 133(3)(b) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Quantum of benefit of ITC to be passed on and the manner of relief to recipients - HELD THAT: - Relying on the DGAP's computations and methodology (ratio of ITC to turnover pre and post GST and recalibration of base price), the Authority concurred with the computed additional ITC benefit of 5.92% for the units under investigation. Applying that percentage to the relevant turnover, the DGAP computed the profiteered amount as Rs. 26,33,536 (inclusive of tax) for the Project for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.11.2020, which included Rs. 52,873 due to the Applicant No.1. The Authority found no reason to differ from the computation or methodology and ordered reduction of prices commensurate with the benefit, refund/return of the profiteered amount to the eligible recipients and directed payment of interest thereon at 18% from the date the amount was profiteered until payment, in terms of Rule 133(3)(b). The Authority directed refund/passing on within three months and directed jurisdictional Commissioners to ensure compliance and report. [Paras 17, 19, 20, 26, 28]The profiteered amount for the Project for 01.07.2017 to 30.11.2020 is determined as Rs. 26,33,536; the Respondent is directed to pass/return this amount to the eligible recipients with interest @18% from the date of profiteering, within three months, failing which recovery under the CGST Act will follow.Imposition of penalty for denial of ITC benefit with effect from 01.01.2020 under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Liability for penalty for offences under Section 171(3A) for conduct occurring after 01.01.2020 - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that Section 171(3A) (inserted w.e.f. 01.01.2020) creates a penal consequence for denial of ITC benefit. Because the investigation period extended beyond 01.01.2020, the Authority held that the Respondent is liable to be proceeded against for imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) for the profiteered amount attributable to the period from 01.01.2020 onwards and directed that notice be issued to the Respondent for that purpose. [Paras 18]Notice to be issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) in respect of profiteering attributable to the period from 01.01.2020 onwards.Referral of incorrect GST rate charging to jurisdictional tax authorities - Action on allegation that wrong GST rate was charged to EWS home buyers - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's finding that the Respondent charged GST at 12% to EWS home buyers whereas the applicable effective rate for EWS houses was 8% (i.e. 12% reduced to 8% by 1/3rd abatement). The Authority held that the grievance of incorrect rate charging does not fall within Section 171 and is outside the anti profiteering remit; it therefore referred the matter to the concerned jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner and to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Indore, Madhya Pradesh for appropriate action and possible refund under the statutory provisions governing tax rates and refunds. [Paras 21, 30]The matter of incorrect GST rate levied on EWS houses is referred to the jurisdictional tax authorities for suitable action; it is not dealt with under Section 171.Investigation of other projects under same GSTIN pursuant to Rule 133(5) - Whether the DGAP should investigate other projects of the Respondent under the same GST registration - HELD THAT: - On the material before it and having determined profiteering in the subject project, the Authority observed that there is a reasonable likelihood of similar non compliance in the Respondent's other projects under the same GSTIN. In exercise of powers under Rule 133(5), the Authority directed the DGAP to investigate all other projects of the Respondent under the same GST registration which have not been investigated, and to submit complete investigation reports for those projects. [Paras 22]DGAP is directed to investigate all other projects under the same GST registration and submit complete reports under Rule 133(5).Final Conclusion: The Authority accepted the DGAP's computation and methodology and held that M/s Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board contravened Section 171(1) by not passing on the additional ITC benefit to home buyers of the Kamayani Nagar project for 01.07.2017 to 30.11.2020; the profiteered amount is determined as Rs. 26,33,536 to be returned/passed to eligible recipients with interest @18% (to be paid within three months or recovered), notice for penalty under Section 171(3A) is to be issued for the period from 01.01.2020, the incorrect GST rate issue is referred to jurisdictional tax authorities, and the DGAP is directed to investigate other projects under the same GSTIN.

Profiteering - benefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in price - investigation under Rule 133(5) - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - DGAP reportInvestigation under Rule 133(5) - profiteering - DGAP report - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether further investigation into other projects under GSTIN 27AAECK9069N1ZQ was required after the Authority's earlier determination of profiteering in the project 'Ruparel Orion'. - HELD THAT: - The Authority considered the DGAP's report submitted under Rule 133(5) which recorded that the current investigation covered the period 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2022 and that the respondent had replied asserting development of only one project, 'Ruparel Orion'. The DGAP verified the respondent's claim against the MHRERA register and, for further confirmation, communicated with the jurisdictional Commissioner. The DGAP noted that 'Ruparel Orion' had already been the subject of an earlier DGAP report dated 28.10.2020 and that the Authority had, by Order No.57/2022 dated 05.08.2022, determined profiteering in respect of that project. On this basis the DGAP concluded that there were no other projects under the same GST registration requiring fresh analysis under Section 171. The Authority examined the DGAP report and the case records and accepted the finding that the respondent had developed only the single project which had already been investigated and adjudicated for profiteering; consequently, no further investigation or re-analysis of that project was necessary. [Paras 3]Accepted the DGAP's finding that only the single project 'Ruparel Orion' exists under the GSTIN and that it has already been investigated and adjudicated for profiteering; no further investigation into other projects is required.Final Conclusion: The Authority accepted the DGAP's report that the respondent had only one project already investigated for profiteering (Ruparel Orion) and required no further probe; a copy of the order is to be supplied to the respondent and the DGAP and the file is to be consigned after completion.

Passage of the benefit of input tax credit - computation of profiteering - recalculation of profiteered amount - remand for further investigation - application of rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - deduction of subcontractor turnover/WCT under Karnataka VAT - discrepancies in turnover/receivables and saleable area data - time limit for disposal under rule 133 of the CGST RulesCalculation of additional input tax credit - discrepancies in turnover/receivables - recalculation of profiteered amount - Whether the DGAP should re-examine the turnover/receivables figures used in computing the ratio of input tax credit to turnover. - HELD THAT: - The Authority recorded the Respondent's contention that the DGAP had used a figure of post GST turnover/amount received which differed from figures later advanced by the Respondent and that certain pending/receivable amounts were not considered during investigation. The DGAP replied that the contested figures/receivables were not furnished during the investigation. The Authority declined to decide the substantive effect of these differences on profiteering at this stage and held that the DGAP must re examine and verify the turnover and receivable data relied upon for computing the relevant ITC ratios and resultant recalibrated base price before final determination of profiteering. [Paras 7, 8]Remanded to DGAP to re examine, verify and, if required, revise the turnover/receivable figures and recompute the profiteered amount and submit a fresh report within three months.Deduction of subcontractor turnover/WCT under Karnataka VAT - eligibility for WCT/VAT credit in pre GST period - recalculation of profiteered amount - Whether the DGAP should verify and consider the Respondent's claim of WCT/VAT credit (deduction of subcontractor turnover) for the pre GST period when calculating pre GST input tax credit to turnover ratio. - HELD THAT: - The Respondent asserted entitlement to WCT/VAT credit by way of deduction of subcontractor turnover from his pre GST taxable turnover and submitted assessment orders and supporting documents. DGAP observed that the investigation records did not reflect such WCT credit and noted the Respondent had earlier been treated as under composition for VAT purposes. The Authority did not resolve the legal entitlement on merits but directed DGAP to verify the claim against assessment orders and statutory provisions of the Karnataka VAT law and, if justified, incorporate the credit in the pre GST ITC calculation for recomputation of profiteering. [Paras 7, 8]Remanded to DGAP to verify the Respondent's WCT/VAT credit claim from State records/assessment orders and, if found admissible, to revise the computations and report within three months.Discrepancies in saleable/sold area data - calculation of relevant ITC per unit/area - recalculation of profiteered amount - Whether the DGAP should re examine the area (saleable/sold) figures used in allocating ITC to turnover. - HELD THAT: - The Respondent challenged the area figures (pre GST and post GST sold/saleable area) used by DGAP in Table A and produced alternative master sheet figures. DGAP replied that the figures used in the investigation were taken from data submitted during the investigation and that the later figures now contended by the Respondent were not part of the investigation record. The Authority required DGAP to verify the area figures from documents on record and, if necessary, to correct the allocation of ITC to area/turnover and recompute the profiteering impact. [Paras 7, 8]Remanded to DGAP to examine and verify the contested area figures, adjust the ITC allocation and recompute the profiteered amount, and submit its revised report within three months.Final Conclusion: The Authority did not make a final finding on profiteering. Instead, it directed the DGAP to re examine and re investigate the specific data and legal issues identified in paras 7(i)-7(iii) (turnover/receivables figures, WCT/VAT/subcontractor credit for the pre GST period, and sold/saleable area discrepancies), to recompute the profiteered amount under rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 for the period 1-7-2017 to 30-4-2020, and to submit a fresh report within three months of this order.

Passing on of input tax credit - anti-profiteering - section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - quantification of profiteering - investigation and remand under rule 133(4) and 133(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017Passing on of input tax credit - section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - quantification of profiteering - Whether the respondent had an obligation under section 171 to pass on the benefit of input tax credit to recipients in respect of the project and, if so, whether there remained any unpassed benefit for the period 1-7-2017 to 30-9-2020. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the DGAP report and the documents on record and found that although applications/registrations for the project were invited in 2016, the lottery and finalization of allottees occurred prior to the introduction of GST and base prices were fixed by advertisement before 1-7-2017. The Authority held that the additional ITC accrued to the respondent post-GST could not have been factored into those pre-GST base prices and therefore the obligation under section 171 to pass on the benefit of ITC was attracted. The respondent had itself admitted and passed on part of the benefit (Rs. 7,09,81,848.82) but the DGAP's computation showed a total benefit of Rs. 7,47,31,900.84, leaving a shortfall. The Authority concluded that an additional benefit of Rs. 37,50,052.03 remained to be passed on, plus 12% GST, for units sold up to 30-9-2020, and that the respondent had supplied construction service within Uttar Pradesh only. The Authority also noted absence of a homebuyer-wise annexure in the DGAP record to allocate the remaining amount to recipients. [Paras 8, 9]The respondent contravened section 171 by not fully passing on the benefit of ITC for the period 1-7-2017 to 30-9-2020; an additional amount of Rs. 37,50,052.03 plus 12% GST is required to be passed on to the recipients.Investigation and remand under rule 133(4) and 133(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - anti-profiteering - Whether further investigation by the DGAP into the respondent's other projects under the same GST registration is required and the temporal scope of such investigation. - HELD THAT: - On the material before it the Authority found reason to believe that profiteering may not be confined to the instant project and that other projects under the respondent's GST registration could require scrutiny. Without adjudicating other merits, the Authority directed the DGAP to investigate all other projects under the same GST registration which have not yet been investigated from the perspective of section 171, and to submit complete investigation reports. The temporal scope for investigation was specified as the period 1-7-2017 to 30-9-2020 or until the date of issuance of the project's Completion Certificate, as appropriate. [Paras 10, 11]DGAP directed to investigate all other projects under the respondent's GST registration and submit complete reports for the period 1-7-2017 to 30-9-2020 or till the project's Completion Certificate.Final Conclusion: The Authority accepted the DGAP's finding that the respondent has not fully passed on the benefit of ITC in respect of the project and fixed an unpassed benefit of Rs. 37,50,052.03 plus 12% GST for 1-7-2017 to 30-9-2020; additionally, the DGAP is directed to investigate all other projects under the same GST registration for the specified period and submit comprehensive reports.

Anti-profiteering - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Input Tax Credit (ITC) - CENVAT credit - Computation of ratio of ITC to turnover - Verification of records - Reinvestigation under rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017CENVAT credit - Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Verification of records - Computation of ratio of ITC to turnover - Reinvestigation directed to verify actual amount of CENVAT credit available to the respondent for the project 'Shiv Bliss' for the pre-GST period (01-4-2016 to 30-6-2017) and to recalculate the ratio of ITC to turnover accordingly. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted conflicting contentions and alternative calculations by the respondent concerning the quantum of CENVAT credit in the pre-GST period, including a disputed amount of Rs. 63,39,788/- and credits claimed prior to 31-3-2016. The Authority directed that the DGAP shall verify the actual CENVAT credit from the respondent's CENVAT registers/records and Service Tax returns and shall take into account only such credit that has been availed and allowed by the competent statutory authorities. On verification, the DGAP is to recalculate the percentage of ITC to turnover in the relevant tables for the purpose of working out any profiteered amount. The Authority therefore did not accept the DGAP calculations as final on this point but remitted the matter for verification and recomputation. [Paras 10]DGAP to verify actual CENVAT credit for 01-4-2016 to 30-6-2017 from records and recalculate the ITC-to-turnover ratio; matter remanded for reinvestigation.Computation of ratio of ITC to turnover - Verification of records - Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Reinvestigation directed to verify whether the area of three units (Nos. 302, 303 and 906 totalling 1490.48 sq. ft.) was included in the total sold area relevant to turnover for the pre-GST period, and to adjust and recalculate the ITC-to-turnover ratio if any area was missed. - HELD THAT: - The respondent alleged that three units, for which 100% payment was received before 30-6-2017, were omitted from the total sold area used in the DGAP's Table-A resulting in incorrect computation of relevant ITC and the ITC-to-turnover ratio. The Authority directed the DGAP to verify from records whether those unit areas were included; if omitted, the DGAP must include them and rework the computations for the purpose of determining any profiteering. Consequently, the Authority remitted this discrete factual verification and consequential recalculation to the DGAP. [Paras 10]DGAP to verify inclusion of the three units in pre-GST sold area, include any missed area, and recalculate the ITC-to-turnover ratio; matter remanded for reinvestigation.Final Conclusion: The Authority has not made a final determination on whether profiteering under section 171 occurred; instead it has directed the DGAP to reinvestigate limited factual matters - verification of actual CENVAT credit for 01-4-2016 to 30-6-2017 and verification of inclusion of three unit areas in pre-GST sold area - and to recalculate the ITC-to-turnover ratios and consequent profiteering, if any, and to submit a fresh report under rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Benefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in price - profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - methodology of comparing pre-GST and post-GST ITC-to-turnover ratios - liability to pass on additional ITC with interest - penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017Benefit of input tax credit - methodology of comparing pre-GST and post-GST ITC-to-turnover ratios - Whether the respondent derived an additional benefit of input tax credit on supply of construction services after implementation of GST and, if so, the quantum of such benefit. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's approach of computing the ratio of CENVAT/ITC to turnover in the pre-GST period (April, 2016 to June, 2017) and comparing it with the ratio of ITC to turnover in the post-GST period (01.07.2017 to 31.05.2020). The ratios were computed from the respondent's verifiable statutory records (Service Tax, VAT and GST returns) and the DGAP's derivation of increased ITC percentage (7.19% post-GST less 0.63% pre-GST = 6.56%) was upheld as the correct measure of additional ITC benefit. Applying this percentage to the amounts realised during the investigation period, the Authority determined that the respondent realised an additional amount by way of ITC benefit which he was required to pass on to the recipients. The DGAP's computed profiteered amount as reproduced and adopted by the Authority was used for adjudication. [Paras 16, 17, 18, 35, 38]The respondent obtained an additional ITC benefit post-GST and the Authority accepted the DGAP's computation of the quantum of benefit as the basis for determining profiteering.Commensurate reduction in price - liability to pass on additional ITC with interest - penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the respondent failed to pass on the additional ITC benefit to recipients, and the consequent reliefs, directions and penal consequences. - HELD THAT: - Applying Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, the Authority found that the respondent had contravened the obligation to pass on the benefit of additional ITC by way of commensurate reduction in prices during the investigation period. On the basis of the DGAP's calculations (adopted by the Authority) the additional amount realised by the respondent during 01.07.2017 to 31.05.2020 was determined and identified to the eligible identifiable buyers. The Authority directed the respondent to pass on the determined profiteered amount to the eligible buyers along with interest at 18% per annum from the dates the amounts were collected till refund, to be done within three months; directed issuance of notice for penalty under Section 171(3A) insofar as liability arises from 01.01.2020 onwards; and directed monitoring by jurisdictional tax authorities, publication of an advertisement and further investigation into other projects of the respondent as permitted under Rule 133(5)(a). The Authority rejected contentions challenging the DGAP's methodology and reliance on buyer denials as creating an inconclusive factual matrix only to the extent noted, but proceeded to rely on verifiable records and confirmations in reaching its orders. [Paras 40, 41, 42, 43, 46]The respondent failed to pass on the additional ITC benefit; the Authority ordered passing/return of the determined amount to eligible buyers with interest, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 171(3A) for the period from 01.01.2020, and directed administrative steps for compliance and further investigation.Final Conclusion: The Authority accepted the DGAP's computation and methodology and held that M/s ATS Township Pvt. Ltd. had realised additional benefit of input tax credit after introduction of GST for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.05.2020 which was not passed on to recipients in contravention of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017; it directed refund/passing of the determined profiteered amount to identifiable buyers with interest at 18% within three months, ordered initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 171(3A) (from 01.01.2020), and directed monitoring, publicity and further investigation into other projects of the respondent.

Benefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in prices - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - methodology of comparing pre GST and post GST ITC to turnover ratios - determination of profiteered amount - interest at 18% on profiteered amount - penalty under Section 171(3A) - investigation period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2020Benefit of input tax credit - commensurate reduction in prices - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - methodology of comparing pre GST and post GST ITC to turnover ratios - Whether the respondent obtained an additional benefit of input tax credit on supply of construction services after implementation of GST and was therefore required to pass that benefit to recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices under Section 171. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's verified computation comparing the ratio of CENVAT/ITC to turnover in the pre GST period (0.12%) with the post GST period (5.81%), yielding an increase of 5.69% attributable to additional ITC. The DGAP's methodology - allocating relevant CENVAT/ITC to project turnover and applying the differential ITC percentage to recalculate base prices and cum tax prices - was examined, found factually based on returns and project data supplied by the respondent, and approved as the basis for determining whether the benefit arose and was required to be passed on under Section 171. The Authority rejected the respondent's contentions challenging the statutory scheme, delegation to make rules, and the general applicability of Section 171, holding that the provision is aimed at protecting end consumers and does not infringe fundamental rights. [Paras 15, 21]The respondent did obtain an additional benefit of input tax credit after 01.07.2017 and was required under Section 171 to pass the commensurate reduction in prices to eligible buyers.Determination of profiteered amount - interest at 18% on profiteered amount - Quantum of profiteering to be returned to eligible recipients and identification of beneficiaries for the investigation period. - HELD THAT: - On the basis of the DGAP's tables (Tables D and E) and the verified project sales and ITC data, the Authority determined that the respondent realised an additional amount which includes the profiteered component computed at 5.69% of the base price and the applicable GST on that component, in respect of supplies made during 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2020 to 535 buyers. The Authority found the DGAP's verification of amounts passed to some buyers to be inconclusive except insofar as confirmations were received from a subset of buyers and therefore relied on the DGAP's computation for the aggregate determination. The Authority directed restitution to identifiable eligible buyers together with interest at 18% per annum from the dates the profiteered amounts were collected until refund. [Paras 22, 23, 24]The Authority determined the profiteered amount as computed by the DGAP to be returned to the eligible buyers identified in Annexure A, and ordered repayment with interest at 18% within three months, failing which recovery under the CGST Act will follow.No profiteering computed for buyers with no consideration received during investigation period - Whether profiteering is to be computed in respect of the Applicant No.1 who had booked a unit but had not made payment during the investigation period. - HELD THAT: - DGAP recorded that no demand was raised nor amount collected from the Applicant No.1 during 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2020 and the Applicant confirmed non receipt of any demand. The Authority noted that profiteering has been computed only for purchasers from whom consideration was raised/collected in the investigation period; amounts for buyers who did not pay during that period are excluded from the current computation and must be addressed when consideration is received. [Paras 9, 22]No profiteering has been computed in respect of the Applicant No.1 for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2020; benefit in respect of such unit shall be computed when demand is raised or consideration is received.Penalty under Section 171(3A) - Whether the respondent is liable for penal consequences for contravention of Section 171 and the temporal scope of such liability. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found that the respondent contravened Section 171(1) by not passing the additional ITC benefit to eligible buyers and held that contravention constitutes an offence attracting penalty under Section 171(3A). As that penal provision was inserted with effect from 01.01.2020, the Authority limited penal liability to the period from 01.01.2020 onwards and directed issuance of notice to the respondent for imposition of penalty under the statutory provision. [Paras 25]The respondent is liable for penalty under Section 171(3A) for the amount profiteered from 01.01.2020 onwards and a notice is to be issued for the purpose.Profiteering post 30.09.2020 not examined - investigation directed into other projects - Whether further investigation or action is required in respect of periods after 30.09.2020 and other projects of the respondent. - HELD THAT: - The Authority recorded that the present investigation was limited to 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2020 and that profiteering for periods after 30.09.2020 could not be determined because the respondent continues to avail ITC and the final quantum cannot presently be ascertained. The Authority therefore directed that: (a) the respondent must pass on future ITC benefits accruing up to the date of issuance of the completion certificate to eligible buyers as per the approved methodology; (b) the Commissioners of CGST and SGST shall monitor compliance and ensure publicity so that eligible buyers may claim benefits; and (c) the DGAP is directed to investigate profiteering in the respondent's other projects, if any. [Paras 29, 30]Profiteering post 30.09.2020 was not adjudicated and is to be addressed later; DGAP is directed to investigate other projects and commissioners are directed to monitor implementation and future passing on of ITC benefits.Final Conclusion: The Authority, accepting the DGAP's verified methodology, held that the respondent secured an additional benefit of input tax credit after implementation of GST and failed to pass the commensurate reduction in prices to eligible buyers for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2020; it determined the aggregate profiteered amount as computed, ordered repayment to identifiable buyers with interest at 18% within three months (with recovery measures if not complied with), directed issue of notice for penalty under Section 171(3A) from 01.01.2020 onwards, and directed further investigations and supervisory steps for post investigation period benefits and other projects.

Obligation to pass on benefit of GST rate reduction to recipients - contravention of section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - calculation of profiteering under rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - re-investigation/re-examination to avoid duplication under rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - effect of GST rate reduction w.e.f. 15-11-2017 on pricingObligation to pass on benefit of GST rate reduction to recipients - contravention of section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - calculation of profiteering under rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - DGAP's finding that the respondent increased base prices after GST rate reduction and did not pass on the benefit, resulting in profiteering for the period 1-4-2018 to 31-12-2018 - HELD THAT: - The DGAP, following investigation, compared pre rate reduction average base prices with post reduction selling prices and computed excess charged on affected transactions. The DGAP quantified total profiteering for the period 1-4-2018 to 31-12-2018 as Rs. 3,31,879/- and concluded that the respondent had contravened the requirement of section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 to pass on the benefit of the reduction in GST rate w.e.f. 15-11-2017. The Authority records that the GST rate reduction and the respondent's status as a distributor were not disputed and that the DGAP's method of calculation identified specific instances of excess charging (illustrated by sample invoice calculations), leading to the stated total. [Paras 2, 4]DGAP's finding of increased base prices and calculated profiteering for 1-4-2018 to 31-12-2018 is recorded and the contravention of section 171(1) is noted, but the Authority did not finally confirm the amount at this stage.Re-investigation/re-examination to avoid duplication under rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - calculation of profiteering under rule 133(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether the profiteering calculated against the respondent has already been considered in the adjudication against the principal manufacturer (M/s. L'Oreal India Pvt. Ltd.), and consequent direction for re investigation - HELD THAT: - The Authority observed that the subject products and the period under investigation overlap with those in the separate case concluded against M/s. L'Oreal India Pvt. Ltd., where profiteering for the relevant period had been confirmed. To prevent duplication and double confirmation of the same profiteered amount, the Authority directed the DGAP to re investigate/re examine, strictly in terms of rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, whether the profiteering calculated in the present case has already been considered in the L'Oreal proceedings. The direction is limited to verification/re examination in light of the findings recorded about overlap and does not itself quantify or re confirm the profiteering amount. [Paras 5, 6]DGAP is directed to re investigate/re examine and report whether the profiteering computed for the respondent has already been taken into account in the L'Oreal case; further adjudication is deferred pending that exercise.Final Conclusion: The Authority recorded the DGAP's finding of profiteering for 1-4-2018 to 31-12-2018 and, to avoid duplication with an overlapping adjudication against the principal manufacturer, directed the DGAP to re investigate under rule 133(4) whether the amount has already been considered in the L'Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. case; the matter is to be re examined before any final confirmation. A copy of this order is to be supplied to the parties and concerned Commissioners and the file consigned after completion.

Passing on of benefit of input tax credit - Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - methodology of comparing ITC to turnover ratio (pre and post GST) - time of supply under Notification No. 4/2018 Central Tax - reinvestigation under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017Passing on of benefit of input tax credit - Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - methodology of comparing ITC to turnover ratio (pre and post GST) - reinvestigation under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Direction to DGAP to reinvestigate profiteering for the project Victoria Vista up to the date of Completion Certificate - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted the DGAP's finding that post GST the respondent had an increased ITC to turnover ratio (5.60% post GST v. 5.07% pre GST), resulting in an additional ITC benefit of 0.53% and a quantified profiteering of Rs. 3,80,367 for four sold units during the investigation period 1 7 2017 to 30 9 2020. The Authority also noted that Completion/Occupancy Certificate for the project was obtained in May 2022. Rather than adjudicating the merits of the DGAP's computations or the respondent's substantive objections, the Authority held that the DGAP should re investigate the matter and compute the commensurate benefit of ITC in respect of all units up to the date of the Completion Certificate. The Authority therefore invoked Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and directed the DGAP to reopen and complete the investigation for the expanded period 1 7 2017 to 18 5 2022 so that the benefit may be recalculated and passed on as appropriate. The Authority expressly refrained from finally accepting or rejecting the DGAP's profiteering computation pending the reinvestigation. [Paras 11, 13, 14]DGAP directed to reinvestigate and compute the commensurate ITC benefit for the period 1-7-2017 to 18-5-2022 and proceed accordingly under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.Final Conclusion: The Authority did not finally adjudicate the merits of the DGAP's profiteering computation; instead it directed the DGAP to reinvestigate the passing on of additional ITC benefit in respect of the project 'Victoria Vista' for the period 1-7-2017 to 18-5-2022 (date of Completion Certificate) and to recompute and take further action as per law.

Benefit of input tax credit under Section 171 - commensurate reduction in prices - anti-profiteering - profiteered amount determined by comparison of pre GST and post GST ITC to turnover ratios - refund of profiteered amount with interest - penalty for denial of ITC post 01.01.2020 - investigation scope linked to RERA registrationBenefit of input tax credit under Section 171 - commensurate reduction in prices - anti-profiteering - Whether the Respondent violated the obligation to pass on the benefit of input tax credit to recipients in terms of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found that Section 171(1) requires any benefit of input tax credit to be passed on to each recipient by way of a commensurate reduction in price and that this obligation applies to every taxable supply and every buyer, not only to the applicant. On facts, the DGAP's investigation showed a material increase in the ITC available post GST compared to pre GST (0.76% pre GST v. 9.13% post GST) for the Project "SKA Green Arch", yielding an additional ITC benefit which was required to be passed on to the buyers. The Respondent's contentions that the investigation should be confined to the applicant, that post GST phase II should be excluded, or that no uniform methodology exists were considered and rejected: the Authority held that comparison of pre and post GST ITC to turnover ratios is a proper and logical method to ascertain the additional ITC benefit and that the Project could not be segmented merely because some construction activity occurred post GST where a single RERA registration and single project financing/accounting exist. Consequently, the Authority concluded that the Respondent denied the benefit of ITC to the customers in contravention of Section 171(1). [Paras 15, 16, 21, 22, 26]The Respondent violated Section 171(1) by not passing on the benefit of input tax credit to the recipients in the Project "SKA Green Arch".Profiteered amount determined by comparison of pre GST and post GST ITC to turnover ratios - profiteered amount - The quantum of the additional benefit of ITC required to be passed on (i.e., the profiteered amount) for the Project "SKA Green Arch" for the investigation period. - HELD THAT: - On the basis of the data submitted and examined (ITC/CENVAT figures, turnovers, sold area and buyers' details), the DGAP computed the increase in the effective ITC ratio post GST as 8.37% (9.13% minus 0.76%). Applying that increase to the relevant base prices and excluding post GST buyers whose agreements expressly stated that ITC benefit had been accounted for (642 buyers), the DGAP recalibrated base prices and computed excess realisation. The Authority reviewed the DGAP's methodology and tables (Table A and Table B) and found no reason to differ. Accordingly, the profiteered amount for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2020 was determined as Rs. 4,75,87,468 for the Project "SKA Green Arch". [Paras 16, 18, 19, 26, 27]Profiteered amount determined as Rs. 4,75,87,468 for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2020 for the Project "SKA Green Arch".Refund of profiteered amount with interest - pass on benefit to each recipient - Remedial directions to be issued to the Respondent for passing on the determined benefit and the mode/timing of compliance. - HELD THAT: - Pursuant to Rule 133(3)(a) and (b) and the Authority's findings, the Respondent was ordered to reduce prices commensurate with the ITC benefit and to refund the profiteered amount to the affected buyers. The Authority directed refund of the profiteered amount along with interest at 18% from the date the amount was profiteered until payment. The Authority ordered the Respondent to pass/pay the amount within three months from the date of the Order and directed the concerned jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner to ensure compliance, to advertise the Order so affected buyers may claim benefits if not passed on, and to report compliance within four months. The Authority also required that the Respondent continue to pass on any further ITC benefit that accrues up to the date of issue of Completion Certificate and authorised complainants to approach the State Screening Committee if residual benefits are not passed on. [Paras 28, 30, 32, 33, 34]Respondent directed to refund/pass on the profiteered amount of Rs. 4,75,87,468 with 18% interest within three months; jurisdictional Commissioners to ensure compliance and advertise; further ITC benefits to be passed until Completion Certificate and compliance report to be submitted.Penalty for denial of ITC post 01.01.2020 - Whether the Respondent is liable for penalty under the amended statutory provision for the period from 01.01.2020 onwards. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that Section 171(3A) was inserted w.e.f. 01.01.2020 and that the investigation period extends from 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2020; accordingly, the Authority found that the Respondent committed an offence under Section 171(3A) for the portion of profiteering occurring on or after 01.01.2020. The Authority did not immediately impose penalty but recorded that a notice be issued to the Respondent calling upon him to explain why penalty should not be imposed for the amount profiteered from 01.01.2020 onwards. [Paras 31]Notice to be issued to the Respondent to show cause why penalty under Section 171(3A) should not be imposed for the period from 01.01.2020 onwards.Investigation scope linked to RERA registration - further investigation of other projects under same GSTIN - Scope of investigation: inclusion of all phases of the project and further action on other projects under the same GST registration. - HELD THAT: - The Authority held that the Project could not be segmented merely because phase II construction activity commenced post GST where there is a single pre GST RERA registration covering all towers, single project financing and no separate accounting of ITC by tower; consequently, all phases of the Project were properly included in the investigation. Given the likelihood that similar non compliance may exist in other projects under the same GSTIN, the Authority directed the DGAP under Rule 133(5) to investigate all other projects of the Respondent under the same GST registration which were not yet investigated and to submit complete reports. [Paras 14, 35]All phases of the single RERA registered Project included in the investigation; DGAP directed to investigate other projects under the Respondent's GSTIN and submit reports.Final Conclusion: The Authority held that M/s Prasu Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. contravened Section 171(1) by denying ITC benefits to buyers of the Project "SKA Green Arch" and determined the profiteered amount for 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2020 as Rs. 4,75,87,468; the Respondent is directed to refund/pass this amount with interest at 18% within three months, compliance to be ensured and reported by the jurisdictional Commissioners, a notice regarding penalty under Section 171(3A) (effective 01.01.2020) is to be issued, and the DGAP is directed to investigate other projects under the same GST registration.

Liability to pass on input tax credit benefit - period up to issuance of Completion Certificate - investigation cut-off date - direction to jurisdictional Commissioner to ensure compliance - reporting to Authority through DGAP - complaint before State Screening Committee for non-complianceLiability to pass on input tax credit benefit - investigation cut-off date - period up to issuance of Completion Certificate - Respondent's obligation to pass on the benefit of input tax credit beyond the investigation period until the Completion Certificate is issued - HELD THAT: - The Authority recorded that the present investigation was carried out only up to 30.11.2020 but the Respondent had not obtained the Completion Certificate by that date. The Authority concluded that, notwithstanding the temporal limit of the investigation, the Respondent remains liable to pass on any benefit of input tax credit that would become available to him up to the date of issue of the Completion Certificate. This extends the Respondent's pass-through obligation beyond the probe cut-off to the decisive contractual/registration milestone (issuance of Completion Certificate). [Paras 32]Respondent is liable to pass on the benefit of input tax credit which becomes available up to the date of issue of the Completion Certificate.Direction to jurisdictional Commissioner to ensure compliance - reporting to Authority through DGAP - Administrative direction to the jurisdictional Commissioner for enforcement and reporting - HELD THAT: - The Authority directed the concerned jurisdictional Commissioner CGST/SGST to ensure that the Respondent passes on the benefit of input tax credit to eligible home buyers/customers/recipients of supply in accordance with the methodology approved by the Authority in the present proceedings. The Commissioner is required to ensure compliance and submit a report to the Authority through the Director General, Anti-Profiteering (DGAP). The direction imposes an administrative supervisory and reporting obligation on the jurisdictional tax authority to effectuate the Authority's remedial mandate. [Paras 32]Jurisdictional Commissioner CGST/SGST to ensure pass-through as per the approved methodology and report compliance to the Authority through the DGAP.Complaint before State Screening Committee for non-compliance - Right of applicants or interested persons to seek further remedy if remaining benefit is not passed on - HELD THAT: - The Authority clarified that Applicant No. 1 or any other interested party/person is at liberty to file a complaint before the Maharashtra State Screening Committee in the event the remaining benefit of input tax credit is not passed on to them. This preserves the private right to seek statutory enforcement through the prescribed State-level complaint mechanism where administrative directions are not effectively implemented. [Paras 32]Applicants or other interested persons may file a complaint before the Maharashtra State Screening Committee if the remaining benefit of input tax credit is not passed on.Final Conclusion: The Authority inserted paragraph 32A directing that, although the investigation was conducted up to 30.11.2020, the Respondent must pass on input tax credit benefits that accrue until issuance of the Completion Certificate; the jurisdictional Commissioner is directed to ensure compliance and report via the DGAP; and affected persons retain the right to file complaints before the Maharashtra State Screening Committee for any remaining non-passage of benefit.

Benefit of input tax credit under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - commensurate reduction in prices/anti profiteering - methodology for quantification of profiteering based on ITC to turnover ratio - directory nature of time limits in Rule 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - recovery of profiteered amount with interest and compliance directionsBenefit of input tax credit under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - commensurate reduction in prices/anti profiteering - Additional ITC benefit accrued to the respondent post GST and was required to be passed on to eligible recipients for the period under investigation. - HELD THAT: - On examination of the DGAP report and the materials on record the Authority found that the respondent's ITC as a percentage of turnover rose from 3.36% (pre GST) to 4.27% (post GST), yielding an additional benefit of 0.91% of turnover. The Authority accepted DGAP's computation methodology and its application to sales realized during the investigation period, concluding that the additional ITC constituted a benefit within the meaning of Section 171(1) which ought to have been passed on to recipients. [Paras 8, 14]The Authority held that additional ITC accrued post GST and was required to be passed on to eligible flat/shop buyers for 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2019.Methodology for quantification of profiteering based on ITC to turnover ratio - The DGAP's methodology of quantifying the ITC benefit by comparing ITC to turnover ratios pre and post GST and computing resultant excess realization was lawful and appropriate in the circumstances. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the respondent's challenges to the DGAP's methodology - including arguments about tax rate differences, allocation of land value, project life aggregation and correlation between receipts and credits - and held that the methodology conformed to the mandate of Section 171. The Authority noted that certain input taxes not available as credit pre GST became available post GST, embedding a net benefit in cost which must be passed on; the DGAP's approach of computing additional ITC as percentage of turnover and applying it to amounts realized from eligible buyers was therefore vindicated. The Authority also observed that credits attributable to unsold units were excluded from the impugned computation and left to be reversed when required. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 14]DGAP's methodology and computations were upheld as consistent with Section 171 and applicable rules.Directory nature of time limits in Rule 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - The objection that the investigation/calling of information under Rule 133(5) was time barred was rejected because the statutory time limits are directory and non mandatory. - HELD THAT: - The Authority addressed the respondent's plea that the exercise under Rule 133(5) was initiated after the six month period and relied upon precedent and principle to treat the time limit as directory where no penal consequence for delay is prescribed. The Authority noted that the DGAP had sought guidance from the Authority and was directed to proceed; judicial precedents were cited to support liberal construction of procedural time limits. [Paras 9, 11]The Authority held that the time limits in Rule 133 are directory and the investigation was not invalidated by the delay.Recovery of profiteered amount with interest and compliance directions - The amount profiteered and the manner of redress were determined and directed: refund of profiteered amount with interest and supervisory compliance measures. - HELD THAT: - Applying the accepted methodology to the material supplied, the DGAP computed the profiteered amount for the investigation period as Rs. 50,09,158/-, which the Authority accepted. The respondent was ordered to pass on/refund the profiteered amount to the identified eligible recipients along with interest at 18% from the date of profiteering until payment, within three months, failing which recovery proceedings under the CGST Act were directed. The Authority also directed jurisdictional Commissioners to ensure compliance and publication of the order to inform affected recipients. [Paras 16, 17, 19, 21, 22]Respondent ordered to refund/pass on Rs. 50,09,158/- with interest @18% to eligible recipients within three months and comply with supervisory and publication directions.Final Conclusion: The Authority accepted the DGAP report and held that M/s Bhartiya Urban Pvt. Ltd. profiteered by Rs. 50,09,158/ for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.10.2019 by failing to pass on additional ITC; DGAP's computation methodology and the directory character of Rule 133 time limits were upheld; respondent directed to refund the amount with 18% interest to identified recipients and to comply with publication and enforcement directions.

Passage of benefit of input tax credit under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - commensurate reduction in price - methodology for computation of profiteering by comparing ratio of ITC/CENVAT to turnover (pre GST v. post GST) - ineligibility of CENVAT credit on one time lease premium for vacant land - jurisdiction of DGAP under Rule 129(6) read with Section 2(91) for investigation under Section 171 - interest at 18% on profiteered amount - non applicability retroactively of penalty under Section 171(3A) - direction to DGAP to investigate other projects of the RespondentPassage of benefit of input tax credit under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - commensurate reduction in price - Whether additional benefit of input tax credit accrued to the Respondent for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 and whether that benefit was passed on to recipients by way of commensurate reduction in price. - HELD THAT: - On examination of the Respondent's Service Tax and GST returns and other records, the Authority accepted DGAP's computation that the ratio of input tax credit to turnover rose from 0.07% (pre GST) to 2.51% (post GST), giving an incremental benefit of 2.44% of turnover. Applying the Authority's approved methodology - recalibrating base price by deducting the incremental ITC percentage from post GST turnover and computing the corresponding GST - the DGAP quantified the aggregate amount not passed on as Rs. 1,56,77,149 (inclusive of GST). The Authority found that the Respondent had not demonstrably passed this benefit to the eligible recipients and that the DGAP's calculations (based on the Respondent's own filed returns and reconciliations) were reliable for the stated period. The Authority therefore held that Section 171(1) had been contravened and directed restitution to identifiable recipients along with prescribed interest.Additional ITC benefit of 2.44% accrued during 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019; Respondent did not pass the benefit and is directed to return Rs. 1,56,77,149 to the identifiable recipients with interest at 18%.Methodology for computation of profiteering by comparing ratio of ITC/CENVAT to turnover (pre GST v. post GST) - Whether the DGAP's methodology of computing profiteering by comparing the ratio of input tax credit/CENVAT to turnover (pre GST v. post GST) and applying the incremental percentage to post GST turnover is correct and can be relied upon. - HELD THAT: - The Authority observed that the ratios and data used by DGAP were derived from documents and returns furnished by the Respondent (Service Tax ST 3, GSTR 3B etc.) and were verified by DGAP. The Authority affirmed that this methodology is the accepted and approved approach of the Authority in cases where benefit of ITC accrues on account of transition to GST and where the relevant figures are available and verifiable. The computation in the present case was accordingly held to be correct and usable for determining the profiteered amount for the specified period.DGAP's comparative ITC/turnover ratio methodology is correct and the DGAP's computation is accepted.Ineligibility of CENVAT credit on one time lease premium for vacant land - Whether the CENVAT/credit claimed by the Respondent in respect of one time lease premium paid to CIDCO for the allotment of plot is admissible for computation of benefit. - HELD THAT: - The Authority agreed with DGAP that leasing/renting of vacant land was in the negative list under the Finance Act, 1994 (as then applicable) and thus no service tax was leviable on such lease of vacant land; consequently the amount paid as lease premium could not be treated as eligible CENVAT/ITC. The Respondent produced no evidence showing that the departmental authorities had allowed such credit. Accordingly, the alleged CENVAT credit on lease premium was excluded from the computations of available ITC.CENVAT claimed on one time lease premium for vacant land is not admissible and was correctly excluded from the profiteering computation.Jurisdiction of DGAP under Rule 129(6) read with Section 2(91) for investigation under Section 171 - Whether the DGAP and this Authority had jurisdiction to investigate and determine profiteering under Section 171 and related Rules. - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted that the DGAP conducted the investigation under Rule 129(6) and submitted the report under the statutory scheme. The Authority held that DGAP functions as a proper officer under the statutory definitions read with the Act and Rules for the purpose of conducting investigations under Section 171 and submitting findings to the Authority. The DGAP's role in investigation and the Authority's adjudicatory role under Section 171 were upheld.DGAP and the Authority have jurisdiction to investigate and determine profiteering under Section 171 and the Rules; the proceedings are within the statutory scheme.Interest at 18% on profiteered amount - Whether interest is payable on the profiteered amount and at what rate. - HELD THAT: - Relying on the statutory framework and DGAP's computation, the Authority directed that the identified profiteered amounts be returned to the eligible recipients along with interest at the prescribed rate of 18% per annum from the dates on which the amounts were collected until the date of repayment or adjustment. The Authority ordered restitution to be effected within three months and recovery procedure in case of non compliance.Profiteered amounts must be repaid/adjusted with interest at 18% per annum from the dates of collection until repayment.Non applicability retroactively of penalty under Section 171(3A) - Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) can be imposed for contraventions occurring during the investigation period (01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019). - HELD THAT: - The Authority observed that Section 171(3A) was inserted with effect from 01.01.2020 and therefore was not in force during the period to which this investigation relates. Consequently, although the Authority found contravention of Section 171(1), it held that the specific penalty provision could not be applied retrospectively to the period of contravention.Penalty under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed retrospectively for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019.Direction to DGAP to investigate other projects of the Respondent - Whether further investigation into other projects executed by the Respondent should be directed. - HELD THAT: - Having found contravention in relation to the subject project and noting the possibility of similar non compliances in other projects, the Authority invoked its powers under the Rules to direct the DGAP to investigate profiteering, if any, in respect of other projects executed by the Respondent. This is a procedural/directed action to be undertaken by DGAP for fresh enquiries and is not a final adjudication on those projects.DGAP is directed to investigate profiteering, if any, in other projects of the Respondent; further inquiries to be conducted afresh.Final Conclusion: The Authority accepted DGAP's findings that an incremental ITC benefit of 2.44% accrued to the Respondent for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019, held that the Respondent failed to pass that benefit to identifiable buyers, quantified the profiteered amount at Rs. 1,56,77,149 and directed restitution with 18% interest within three months; ineligible CENVAT on the lease premium was excluded from computation; DGAP and the Authority's jurisdiction to adjudicate under Section 171 was affirmed; retrospective imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) was disallowed; and DGAP was directed to investigate other projects of the Respondent.

Passing on benefit of input tax credit by way of commensurate reduction in price - applicability of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - comparative base price pre-GST and post-GST for profiteering assessment - provisional input tax credit and reversal on unsold units - extension of investigatory time-limits due to COVID-19 Comparative base price pre-GST and post-GST for profiteering assessment - applicability of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether there was any reduction in rate of tax or increase in the benefit of input tax credit in respect of the impugned construction project which would trigger Section 171. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's finding that the impugned project commenced after introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and there were no bookings, supplies or CENVAT/ pre-GST input tax credits in the pre-GST period which could form a comparative base. The project starting date and first bookings were recorded in the post-GST period and the occupancy/building permissions likewise post-dated GST; therefore no antecedent pre-GST tax structure or input tax credit benefit existed to be compared with post-GST ITC. In view of this factual matrix, a reduction in rate of tax or an increase in ITC benefit (which are the triggering events for Section 171) was not established for the project under investigation. The DGAP's conclusion that Section 171(1) was not attracted in the present case was concurred with by the Authority. [Paras 2, 9, 10] No reduction in tax rate or increase in benefit of input tax credit was established; Section 171(1) did not apply to the impugned project. Passing on benefit of input tax credit by way of commensurate reduction in price - provisional input tax credit and reversal on unsold units - Whether the respondent passed on any benefit to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in price in terms of Section 171. - HELD THAT: - Because the Authority found no antecedent pre-GST tax/credit position and no reduction in rate or additional ITC benefit to be passed on, the question of whether the respondent had passed on such a benefit did not arise on merits. The DGAP's investigation and the records (including project commencement, booking dates and GST returns) showed first bookings and project activities only in the post-GST period; consequently the respondent could not be held to have contravened the obligation to pass on benefit. The Authority also noted that issues relating to provisional ITC on unsold units and possible reversal were collateral and did not establish any contravention in respect of the purchases complained of. [Paras 2, 9, 10] No contravention for failure to pass on benefit by way of commensurate reduction in price was found; the question of passing on benefit was not attracted. Final Conclusion: The Authority concurred with the DGAP report and held that Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 was not attracted in respect of the project for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.05.2020; no contravention was found and the complaint was dismissed. The order was delivered within the extended limitation period applicable during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Passing on benefit of input tax credit - applicability of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - requirement of commensurate reduction in prices - computation of net benefit of ITC as percentage of turnover - treatment of provisional ITC for under construction units - restriction of investigation on account of opting for 1% scheme without ITCPassing on benefit of input tax credit - applicability of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - computation of net benefit of ITC as percentage of turnover - requirement of commensurate reduction in prices - Whether the Respondent violated the obligation under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by not passing on the benefit of input tax credit to buyers of units in project "Garden Avenue K 4" for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019, and if so, the quantum of profiteering. - HELD THAT: - The Authority accepted the DGAP's investigation which compared the ratio of CENVAT/ITC to turnover in the pre GST period (01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017) and the post GST investigation period (01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019). The DGAP computed the relevant ITC attributable to sold area and observed that the ITC as a percentage of turnover fell from 1.03% (pre GST) to 0.63% (post GST), a decrease of 0.40% of turnover. The DGAP therefore concluded that no additional benefit of ITC accrued to the Respondent on implementation of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. The Authority noted the Respondent's submissions, the documents furnished, the restriction of the investigation period due to the Respondent's subsequent opt in to the 1% scheme without ITC, and the Applicant's subsequent satisfaction with the DGAP report. On these bases the Authority agreed with the DGAP that Section 171(1), which is triggered only by a reduction in tax rate or an increase in input tax credit that must be passed on by way of commensurate price reduction, was not attracted for the project in the investigation period. Consequently, no quantification of profiteering was necessary. [Paras 3, 9, 10]No violation of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 was made out for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019; therefore no profiteering is to be quantified or ordered.Final Conclusion: The application alleging failure to pass on benefit of ITC in respect of the project "Garden Avenue K 4" is dismissed as not maintainable; the Authority finds that neither a reduction in tax rate nor any additional ITC benefit arose in the investigation period, and accordingly Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 is not attracted.

Passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax - commensurate reduction in prices - anti-profiteering - investigation by DGAP under Rule 129 - Procedure and Methodology under Rule 126 - average to actual comparative method for computation of profiteering - no netting off / zeroing not permissible for cross SKU adjustment - deposit of unidentifiable beneficiary amounts in Consumer Welfare FundPassing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax - commensurate reduction in prices - anti-profiteering - Whether the Respondents violated Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by not passing on the benefit of GST rate reduction from 28% to 18% to recipients for the period under investigation. - HELD THAT: - The Authority found on material before it, including invoice comparisons and DGAP calculations, that the GST rate on the subject goods was reduced w.e.f. 15.11.2017 and that both Respondents increased base prices so that recipients did not receive commensurate reduction in price. Section 171(1) mandates that any reduction in rate of tax must be passed on to each recipient by way of commensurate reduction in price; this obligation attaches to a registered supplier including distributors. The Authority rejected the distributor's contention that being a distributor insulated him from liability; transaction values pre and post rate change were comparable and showed non passing of benefit. The Authority held that the benefit must be passed on per supply/unit to each buyer and could not be aggregated or adjusted across different buyers or SKUs. Accordingly, the Respondents were held to have resorted to profiteering for the period 15.11.2017 to 30.09.2019. [Paras 21, 22, 24, 25, 27]The Respondents have committed contravention of Section 171(1) by not passing on the commensurate benefit of tax reduction for the period 15.11.2017 to 30.09.2019.Investigation by DGAP under Rule 129 - Procedure and Methodology under Rule 126 - Whether the DGAP was empowered to investigate the distributor (Respondent No.1) as well as the manufacturer (Respondent No.2), and whether due process including methodology and hearing requirements rendered the investigation invalid. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the sequence of Screening Committee and Standing Committee references and DGAP's notices. It held that Rule 129(4) authorises the DGAP to issue notices to other persons as deemed fit for a fair inquiry; scrutiny of pre and post rate reduction invoices gave sufficient basis to investigate the distributor as well. The Authority further observed that Section 171 and the Authority's Notification dated 28.03.2018 under Rule 126 provide the contours of procedure and methodology; no single fixed mathematical formula is mandated because computation is product specific and a mathematical exercise. The Authority also noted that DGAP, as an investigatory arm, is not required to grant a personal hearing during investigation stage and that the Respondents were afforded full opportunity before the Authority itself. Challenges based on absence of a prescribed universal formula or on alleged infringement of Article 19(1)(g) were rejected as Section 171 does not permit appropriation of tax benefit by suppliers. [Paras 7, 21, 23, 26, 28]DGAP was empowered to investigate both distributor and manufacturer; the Procedure and Methodology notification and statutory framework suffice for the investigatory exercise and the investigation/processing were not vitiated for want of a single prescribed mathematical formula or for lack of hearing at the DGAP stage.Average to actual comparative method for computation of profiteering - no netting off / zeroing not permissible for cross SKU adjustment - Whether the methodology adopted by DGAP - comparing pre rate reduction average base price (typically 01.11.2017-14.11.2017 or earlier months where needed) with post rate reduction actual invoice wise base price - and the exclusion of negative values (no netting off) is lawful and appropriate for computation of profiteering. - HELD THAT: - The Authority held that computation of 'commensurate' reduction is a mathematical exercise varying by product; DGAP's approach of obtaining an average pre rate base price (using sales from 01.11.2017 to 14.11.2017 or prior months if needed) and comparing it with actual invoice wise post rate base prices is reasonable and justified. This method addresses practical difficulties such as differing customers, differing prices to different buyers, and absence of one to one matched transactions. The Authority accepted DGAP's rationale for average to actual comparison to ensure each purchaser who actually paid more receives benefit. The Authority also rejected the Respondent's plea for netting off negative and positive instances across SKUs or customers, holding that netting would permit denial of benefit to individual recipients; consequently 'zeroing' (i.e., ignoring negative values when computing profiteering for instances where actual price was below the commensurate price) was upheld. [Paras 25, 29, 31, 32]DGAP's average to actual comparison and exclusion of negative values (no netting off across SKUs/customers) is lawful and appropriate for computing the profiteered amount.Deposit of unidentifiable beneficiary amounts in Consumer Welfare Fund - refund/return to identifiable recipient with interest - Quantification of profiteered amounts and remedial directions: quantum attributable to each Respondent; treatment of amounts attributable to identifiable recipients; deposit of remaining amounts and interest. - HELD THAT: - On the basis of DGAP computations and annexures, the Authority determined the profiteered amount for Respondent No.1 as Rs.61,54,833/- (inclusive of Rs.38,267/- collected from the Applicant) and for Respondent No.2 as Rs.28,50,72,358/-. The Authority noted that the amount for Respondent No.2 includes the Respondent No.1 quantum; accordingly Respondent No.2 must pass Rs.61,54,833/- to Respondent No.1 (identifiable) who in turn must refund Rs.38,267/- to the Applicant with interest from the dates of realization. The balance amounts, where recipients are not identifiable, are directed to be deposited in equal halves into the Central and respective State Consumer Welfare Funds with interest @18% from dates of realization. Time for compliance and monitoring directions to Commissioners were prescribed. The Authority declined to accept unsubstantiated claims of credit notes unless verifiable evidence from distributors established those notes were issued specifically to pass on the GST rate benefit. [Paras 37, 38, 39, 40, 41]Profiteered amounts fixed: Respondent No.1 Rs.61,54,833/- (Rs.38,267/- to be returned to Applicant with interest) and Respondent No.2 Rs.28,50,72,358/- (must refund Rs.61,54,833/- to Respondent No.1 and deposit remaining Rs.27,89,17,525/- into Consumer Welfare Funds with interest); compliance and monitoring directions issued.Final Conclusion: The Authority, on the basis of DGAP's investigation and material on record, held that both Respondents failed to pass on the commensurate benefit of GST rate reduction w.e.f. 15.11.2017 and thus committed profiteering for the period 15.11.2017 to 30.09.2019. Profiteered amounts were quantified (Respondent No.1: Rs.61,54,833/-; Respondent No.2: Rs.28,50,72,358/-), refund to identifiable recipients and deposit into Consumer Welfare Funds with interest were ordered, DGAP's investigatory powers and methodology were upheld, and netting off across supplies/customers was rejected.