2022 (5) TMI 973 - NAPA - GST

Developer ordered to refund Rs. 25 crore for not passing GST rate reduction benefits to flat buyers under section 171

Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Indirect Taxes and Customs Versus M/s. DLF Limited

Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Indirect Taxes and Customs Versus M/s. DLF Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Allegation of profiteering by the Respondent.2. Determination of whether the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was passed to the buyers.3. Calculation of the profiteered amount.4. Jurisdiction and powers of the Anti-Profiteering Authority and DGAP.5. Compliance with principles of natural justice.6. Constitutionality of the Anti-Profiteering Authority.7. Methodology for calculating profiteering.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Allegation of Profiteering:The case arose from a complaint alleging that the Respondent charged GST on Preferential Location Charges (PLC) despite the completion certificate being issued, which should exempt such charges from GST. The Haryana State Screening Committee forwarded the complaint for further investigation.2. Determination of Benefit of ITC:The DGAP's investigation revealed that the Respondent was availing ITC from a common pool for multiple projects. The investigation aimed to determine if the Respondent passed the benefit of additional ITC to buyers in the projects 'The Camellias,' 'The Crest,' and 'The Ultima.' The ITC ratios pre-GST and post-GST were compared to ascertain the benefit.3. Calculation of Profiteered Amount:- The Camellias: Pre-GST ITC ratio was 0.67%, post-GST was 1.84%, resulting in an additional benefit of 1.18%. The profiteered amount was Rs. 7,23,50,135.- The Crest: Pre-GST ITC ratio was 2.64%, post-GST was 14.40%, resulting in an additional benefit of 11.76%. The profiteered amount was Rs. 12,94,35,170.- The Ultima: Pre-GST ITC ratio was 2.45%, post-GST was 17.46%, resulting in an additional benefit of 15.01%. The profiteered amount was Rs. 4,91,23,070.4. Jurisdiction and Powers:The Respondent contended that the Anti-Profiteering Authority and DGAP did not have the power to initiate suo moto investigations. However, the Authority clarified that it is empowered under Section 171 (2) of the CGST Act and Rule 129 to examine whether benefits have been passed on, and the investigation was within its jurisdiction.5. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:The Respondent argued that they were not given an opportunity to present their case before the Standing Committee, violating natural justice principles. The Authority found no provision in Rule 128 requiring a hearing at this stage and deemed the process followed as compliant with the rules.6. Constitutionality of the Anti-Profiteering Authority:The Respondent challenged the constitutionality of the Authority, arguing it lacked a judicial member. The Authority referenced various Supreme Court judgments, concluding that it performs quasi-judicial functions and does not require a judicial member. The Authority's composition and powers were deemed constitutional.7. Methodology for Calculating Profiteering:The Respondent contended that the methodology for calculating profiteering was arbitrary and lacked statutory backing. The Authority stated that Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act provides a clear methodology, and the comparison of pre-GST and post-GST ITC ratios is a valid approach. The benefit of ITC must be passed on to each buyer, and the calculation method used by the DGAP was upheld.Conclusion:The Respondent was found to have profiteered by not passing on the additional ITC benefits to buyers in the three projects. The total profiteered amount was determined to be Rs. 25,09,08,375, which the Respondent was ordered to refund to the buyers along with interest. The Authority also directed the publication of this order and compliance within three months, with further action to be taken in case of non-compliance.