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 <h1>Failure to Pass on Benefits: CGST Violation</h1> <h3>Sh. Pawan Kumar and 71 Others Versus M/s. S3 Buildwell LLP</h3> Sh. Pawan Kumar and 71 Others Versus M/s. S3 Buildwell LLP - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether there was any net additional benefit of ITC to the Respondent.2. Whether there was any violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, by not passing on the benefit of ITC by the Respondent.Detailed Analysis:1. Net Additional Benefit of ITC to the Respondent:The DGAP conducted a detailed investigation and concluded that the Respondent benefited from additional ITC post-GST implementation. The ITC ratio to turnover was calculated for both pre-GST and post-GST periods, revealing a significant increase from 2.60% to 7.37%, resulting in an additional benefit of 4.77%. The Respondent's claim that the DGAP's calculations were arbitrary was dismissed, as the DGAP's methodology was based on actual figures from the Respondent's returns and not averages. The DGAP's findings were supported by detailed tables (Table-B and Table-C) illustrating the ITC ratios and the recalibrated base prices.2. Violation of Provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017:The DGAP's report indicated that the Respondent failed to pass on the benefit of the additional ITC to the buyers, thereby violating Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The total profiteered amount was calculated to be Rs. 2,69,77,661/-. The Respondent's argument that the benefit should be passed on at the completion of the project was rejected. The Authority held that the benefit should be passed on monthly as the Respondent avails the ITC. The Respondent's claim of having passed on Rs. 2,22,85,626/- was not substantiated with documentary evidence, and thus, the DGAP's findings were upheld.Conclusion and Orders:The Authority ordered the Respondent to refund/reduce the price commensurate with the benefit of ITC received, along with interest at 18% from the date of realization till payment. The total amount to be refunded was Rs. 2,69,77,661/-. The Respondent was also found liable for penalty under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017, and a Show Cause Notice was issued. The Commissioners of CGST/SGST Haryana were directed to monitor the compliance of this order under the supervision of the DGAP, with a compliance report to be submitted within three months.
TaxTMI 