Authority orders detailed investigation under Rule 133(4) of CGST Rules

The Authority found the DGAP's report insufficient and directed a further detailed investigation under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, on the specified issues. The DGAP was instructed to submit a comprehensive report within three months.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Acceptance of Completion Certificate issued by a private architect.
2. Identification of the Competent Authority for issuing Completion Certificate in Odisha.
3. Earning of ITC by the Respondent on the project from July 2017 onwards.
4. Utilization of ITC by the Respondent for output GST liability on the project.
5. Claim of transitional credit by the Respondent through TRAN-1 statements.
6. Availment and passing on of additional ITC by the Respondent to buyers.
7. Sale of houses by landowners and passing on ITC benefit to buyers.
8. Entitlement of Applicant No. 1 to ITC benefit.
9. Eligibility of other house buyers for ITC benefit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acceptance of Completion Certificate issued by a private architect:
The DGAP's report relied on a Completion Certificate dated 31.03.2016 issued by a private architect, Mr. Arijit Sarkar, to claim that the project was completed before the implementation of GST on 01.07.2017. However, this Authority noted that such a certificate should be issued by a competent authority duly notified by the State of Odisha, and reliance on a private architect's certificate was not correct.

2. Identification of the Competent Authority for issuing Completion Certificate in Odisha:
The Authority questioned the DGAP on the basis of accepting the Completion Certificate from a private architect and directed to identify the competent authority in Odisha responsible for issuing such certificates.

3. Earning of ITC by the Respondent on the project from July 2017 onwards:
The DGAP reported that the Respondent availed ITC during the period from July 2017 to March 2019. However, the DGAP did not clarify which project this ITC pertained to and whether it should be passed on to the buyers of the houses in the project.

4. Utilization of ITC by the Respondent for output GST liability on the project:
The DGAP's report included details from the Electronic Credit Register showing ITC availed by the Respondent. The Authority noted the need for clarification on which project this ITC was utilized for discharging output GST liability.

5. Claim of transitional credit by the Respondent through TRAN-1 statements:
The Authority noted that the DGAP's report showed the Respondent availed transitional credit as per TRAN-1 statements but did not provide sufficient proof or explanation regarding its relation to the construction service.

6. Availment and passing on of additional ITC by the Respondent to buyers:
The DGAP claimed that the ITC availed by the Respondent was related to repair and maintenance works, not the construction of the project. However, the Authority found this claim unsubstantiated and directed further investigation to determine if the Respondent availed additional ITC since July 2017 and if it should be passed on to buyers.

7. Sale of houses by landowners and passing on ITC benefit to buyers:
The project land belonged to two landowners who developed it in collaboration with the Respondent. The DGAP did not clarify whether these landowners sold their share of houses and if the ITC benefit was passed on to buyers. The Authority directed further investigation on this matter.

8. Entitlement of Applicant No. 1 to ITC benefit:
Applicant No. 1 argued that the project was under construction as of 01.07.2017 and completed in February 2018, thus entitling him to ITC benefits. The Authority noted that the payment sequence indicated eligibility for ITC benefit and directed further investigation to confirm this entitlement.

9. Eligibility of other house buyers for ITC benefit:
The DGAP's report did not clarify whether the other buyers of the units were entitled to the ITC benefit. The Authority directed further investigation to determine the eligibility of the remaining house buyers for ITC benefits.

Conclusion:
The Authority found the DGAP's report insufficient and directed a further detailed investigation under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, on the specified issues. The DGAP was instructed to submit a comprehensive report within three months.

---