Respondent penalized for not passing on tax benefits to buyers, ordered to refund profiteered amount.

Shri Abhishek, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Versus M/s. Signature Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Abhishek, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Versus M/s. Signature Builders Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of not passing on the benefit of input tax credit (ITC) under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Determination of profiteering by the Respondent.
3. Legitimacy of the Applicant No. 1’s complaint.
4. Calculation methodology for determining the benefit of ITC and profiteering.
5. Compliance with the anti-profiteering provisions and the requirement to pass on the benefit to buyers.
6. Imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegation of Not Passing on the Benefit of ITC:
The Applicant No. 1 alleged that the Respondent did not pass on the benefit of ITC by way of commensurate reduction in price as required under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The complaint was forwarded to the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) for detailed investigation.

2. Determination of Profiteering:
The DGAP conducted an investigation and submitted that the Respondent had benefited from additional ITC post-GST implementation but did not pass this benefit to the buyers. The investigation covered the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018. The DGAP calculated that the Respondent had profiteered an amount of Rs. 2,58,80,927, which included GST on the base profiteered amount. This amount was required to be refunded to the buyers along with interest.

3. Legitimacy of the Applicant No. 1’s Complaint:
The Respondent contended that Applicant No. 1 was not a buyer in the project and hence had no locus standi. However, the authority clarified that under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, any person could file a complaint alleging profiteering, regardless of whether they were a recipient of the service.

4. Calculation Methodology for Determining the Benefit of ITC and Profiteering:
The DGAP calculated the benefit of additional ITC by comparing the pre-GST and post-GST periods. The ITC as a percentage of turnover was 3.17% in the pre-GST period and 5.89% in the post-GST period, indicating an additional benefit of 2.72%. The Respondent’s claim that the DGAP used an average method was refuted, as the calculations were based on actual figures from the Respondent’s returns.

5. Compliance with Anti-Profiteering Provisions:
The authority ordered the Respondent to reduce the prices commensurate with the benefit of ITC received and refund the profiteered amount to the buyers along with 18% interest from the date of excess collection till the date of payment. The Respondent was also directed to pass on any future benefits of additional ITC.

6. Imposition of Penalty:
The authority found that the Respondent had committed an offense under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017, by not passing on the benefit of ITC to the buyers. A show-cause notice was issued to the Respondent to explain why a penalty should not be imposed.

Conclusion:
The authority concluded that the Respondent had contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, by not passing on the benefit of additional ITC to the buyers. The Respondent was ordered to refund the profiteered amount with interest and was subject to a penalty under Section 171 (3A). The Commissioners of CGST/SGST Haryana were directed to monitor the compliance of this order.