Authority dismisses application citing no violation of Section 171(1) of CGST Act. Applicant's claims deemed untenable.

The Authority dismissed the application, finding that the Respondent did not violate Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Applicant's claims of reduced tax rates and unpassed ITC benefits were deemed untenable as the flat price was set considering post-GST ITC availability, and the project commenced after GST implementation. Therefore, no reduction in tax rates or additional ITC benefits were applicable. The Respondent correctly charged GST rates as per notifications, and the profiteering allegation was not substantiated.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was a reduction in the rate of tax on the construction services as alleged by the Applicant No. 1Rs.
2. Whether there was a benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) available to the Respondent which was not passed on by him to the Applicant No. 1Rs.
3. Whether there was any violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by the RespondentRs.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue I: Reduction in the Rate of Tax on Construction Services

The Applicant No. 1 alleged that the rate of tax on construction services had been reduced from 12% to 8% by the Central Government, and as per the directive issued by the CBIC, he should not have been charged GST on the amount deposited. The Respondent charged GST at 12% initially and then at 8% post the notification dated 21.01.2018. The Authority found that the price of the flat was fixed after considering the availability of ITC post-GST, and the Applicant had agreed to bear the GST burden as per the terms of the agreement. Therefore, the claim that the Applicant should not have been charged GST was untenable. The Respondent had correctly charged the GST rates as per the applicable notifications, and since the project was not under execution in the pre-GST period, no comparison could be made between pre and post-GST rates to establish any reduction in tax rate benefit that needed to be passed on.

Issue II: Benefit of Additional ITC

The Applicant No. 1 claimed that the benefit of ITC had not been passed on by the Respondent. The investigation revealed that the project Solera-2 was started post-GST, and there was no pre-GST ITC available for comparison. The Respondent provided an affidavit stating that no ITC was availed during the pre-GST period, and the first ITC was taken on 28.07.2017 post-GST implementation. Since the project began after GST implementation, there was no additional ITC benefit that the Respondent needed to pass on. The Authority concluded that the allegations regarding the non-passing of ITC benefits were incorrect and could not be accepted.

Issue III: Violation of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017

Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 mandates that any reduction in the rate of tax or benefit of ITC should be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. The Authority found that since there was no reduction in the rate of tax or additional ITC benefit to the Respondent, the provisions of Section 171 (1) were not attracted in this case. The Respondent had not contravened the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, and thus, the allegation of profiteering was not established against the Respondent.

Conclusion:

Based on the above findings, the Authority dismissed the application filed by the Applicants, concluding that the Respondent had not violated the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The order directed that a copy be sent to the Applicants and the Respondent free of cost, and the case file be consigned after completion.

---