TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The core issues considered in this judgment are:
- Whether there was a benefit of reduction in the rate of tax or Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the supply of construction services by the Respondents on the implementation of GST from 01.07.2017.
- Whether such a benefit was passed on by the Respondents to the recipients, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents
The legal framework revolves around Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates that any reduction in the tax rate or the benefit of ITC must be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. The methodology adopted by the DGAP is based on the calculation of ITC as a percentage of turnover during pre-GST and post-GST periods.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning
The Court found that the Respondent No. 1 had benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 10.51% of the turnover during the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019, which was not passed on to the flat buyers and Respondent No. 2. The DGAP's methodology of comparing the ITC to turnover ratios in pre and post-GST periods was upheld as rational and logical.
Key Evidence and Findings
The DGAP's investigation revealed that the Respondent No. 1 availed ITC at 12.00% of the turnover in the post-GST period compared to 1.49% in the pre-GST period. The benefit of Rs. 30,76,57,916/- was not passed on to the consumers, which included Rs. 29,53,22,474/- to 851 home buyers and Rs. 1,23,35,442/- to Respondent No. 2.
Application of Law to Facts
Based on the evidence and the methodology adopted, the Court concluded that the Respondents had contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, by not passing on the benefit of ITC to the consumers.
Treatment of Competing Arguments
The Respondents raised several objections, including the absence of a prescribed methodology for calculating profiteering, violation of natural justice, and the constitutionality of Section 171. The Court rejected these arguments, stating that the methodology adopted was consistent with the law, and the proceedings were conducted in compliance with natural justice principles. The Court also clarified that the absence of a judicial member in the Authority did not invalidate its constitution.
Conclusions
The Court concluded that the Respondents had not passed on the benefit of ITC as required under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. It directed the Respondents to pass on the profiteered amount along with interest to the eligible recipients within three months.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Core Principles Established
The judgment reinforces the principle that the benefit of ITC must be passed on to consumers as mandated by Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. It also upholds the DGAP's methodology of calculating profiteering based on ITC to turnover ratios.
Final Determinations on Each Issue
The Court determined that the Respondents had contravened Section 171 by not passing on the ITC benefits and ordered them to refund the profiteered amount with interest. It also directed further investigation into other projects of the Respondents to ensure compliance with anti-profiteering provisions.
TaxTMI 