NAPA orders reinvestigation in flat purchase profiteering case despite rule 133 six-month period breach

NAPA directed reinvestigation by DGAP regarding profiteering in flat purchase case. Authority found non-adherence to six-month period under rule 133 of CGST Rules, 2017, constituting contravention of section 171 of CGST Act. However, citing Delhi HC precedent, NAPA held that the six-month limitation period is directory rather than mandatory since no consequences for non-adherence are prescribed in the Act or rules. Matter remanded to DGAP for reinvestigation under rule 133(4) provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was a benefit of reduction in the rate of tax or ITC on the supply of Construction Service by the Respondent on implementation of GST w.e.f. 1-7-2017.
2. Whether such benefit was passed on by the Respondent to the recipients, in terms of section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Benefit of Reduction in the Rate of Tax or ITC on the Supply of Construction Service:
The DGAP's investigation found that post-GST, the Respondent could avail ITC of GST paid on all inputs and input services, whereas pre-GST, only Service Tax credit was available. The report detailed that the ITC as a percentage of turnover increased from 1.54% pre-GST to 7.49% post-GST, indicating a benefit of 5.95% in ITC. This was calculated based on the data provided by the Respondent, including CENVAT/ITC registers, GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns, and other financial documents.

2. Passing on the Benefit to the Recipients:
The DGAP concluded that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional ITC to the buyers, including Applicant No. 1. The recalibrated base price and excess realization (profiteering) were calculated, showing that Rs. 1,82,42,527/- (including GST) was not passed on, which included Rs. 8,75,301/- for Applicant No. 1. The investigation period covered 1-7-2017 to 31-5-2020, and the DGAP found that the Respondent contravened section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Respondent's Contentions:
The Respondent argued that the DGAP's report was based on incorrect facts and legal basis, and the entire investigation was without jurisdiction. They contended that the computation of pre-GST credit was incorrect and that the DGAP excluded Rs. 63,39,788/- of Cenvat credit incorrectly. They also argued that the report was vague and did not consider various factors like increased cost of inputs and the stage of construction when contracts were entered.

DGAP's Clarifications:
The DGAP clarified that the findings were based on data furnished by the Respondent, and the exclusion of Rs. 63,39,788/- was based on the Respondent's own submission. The DGAP maintained that comparing pre and post-GST ITC was justified and necessary to determine the benefit of ITC that should be passed on to consumers.

Authority's Directions:
The Authority directed the DGAP to:
- Verify the actual amount of CENVAT credit available to the Respondent from 1-4-2016 to 30-6-2017.
- Recalculate the percentage of ITC to turnover considering the verified CENVAT credit.
- Verify if the area of three units (302, 303, and 906) was included in the total sold area for the pre-GST period.
- Recalculate the percentage of ITC to turnover and the profiteered amount, if any, based on these verifications.

The case was sent back for reinvestigation by the DGAP as per the directions of the Authority, and the DGAP was instructed to submit a revised report.

Conclusion:
The judgment highlighted the need for accurate calculation of ITC benefits and their proper passing on to consumers. The Authority's order emphasized the importance of verifying all relevant data before concluding on profiteering allegations. The reinvestigation was mandated to ensure compliance with section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.

---