Construction company profiteered Rs. 7.9 crore by not passing GST input tax credit benefits to homebuyers under Section 171

NAPA determined that a construction company profiteered Rs. 7,90,95,475 by failing to pass ITC benefits to homebuyers after GST implementation from July 2017. The respondent violated Section 171 of CGST Act by not providing commensurate price reductions to customers. NAPA found that excess ITC benefits given to some buyers cannot offset shortfalls to others, requiring individual compliance. Despite verification efforts by DGAP, respondent failed to provide required evidence of benefit transfer. While penalty provisions under Section 171(3A) existed, they could not be applied retrospectively as they were enacted after the violation period ended September 2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Verification of ITC benefit passed on to homebuyers.
2. Payment of applicable interest on the profiteered amount.
3. Methodology and procedure for computation of profiteering amount.
4. Time periods for comparison of ITC in pre-GST and post-GST periods.
5. Compliance with Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
6. Penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017.
7. Investigation of other projects under the same GST registration.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Verification of ITC Benefit Passed on to Homebuyers:
The Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) submitted an Investigation Report dated 28.08.2020, which calculated the total profiteered amount as Rs. 7,90,95,474/-. The Respondent claimed to have passed on the benefit of ITC amounting to Rs. 8,28,91,520/- to homebuyers. The Authority directed the DGAP to verify this claim by obtaining written acknowledgment receipts from homebuyers. Despite efforts, the Respondent failed to provide acknowledgments from all homebuyers. The DGAP verified the benefit passed on to 31 homebuyers, confirming Rs. 36,84,259/-. The Respondent was found to have not passed on the benefit of Rs. 7,54,50,978/- to 450 homebuyers.

2. Payment of Applicable Interest on the Profiteered Amount:
The Respondent claimed to have passed on the ITC benefit along with applicable interest at 18% per annum. However, the Respondent did not provide details required for computation of interest, such as amounts raised and received from homebuyers along with dates. Consequently, the DGAP could not verify the payment of interest.

3. Methodology and Procedure for Computation of Profiteering Amount:
The Respondent contended that the methodology adopted by the DGAP was incorrect. The Authority clarified that the "Methodology and Procedure" had been notified under Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017, and no fixed mathematical methodology could be prescribed due to varying facts and circumstances of each case. The computation of profiteering was based on the ratio of ITC to taxable turnover in pre and post-GST periods.

4. Time Periods for Comparison of ITC in Pre-GST and Post-GST Periods:
The Respondent argued that the time periods taken for comparison were incorrect. The DGAP compared the percentage of ITC to taxable turnover for 15 months in the pre-GST period and 30 months in the post-GST period. The Authority found this approach reasonable and clarified that the period of investigation was determined based on the date of reference received by the DGAP.

5. Compliance with Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017:
The Authority determined that the Respondent had not commensurately passed on the benefit of ITC to homebuyers as required under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Respondent was ordered to reduce prices commensurate with the ITC benefit and pass on the profiteered amount along with interest at 18% to the homebuyers within three months.

6. Penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017:
The Authority held that the Respondent violated Section 171 (1) during the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019. However, Section 171 (3A) was inserted w.e.f. 01.01.2020 and could not be applied retrospectively. Therefore, no penalty under Section 171 (3A) was imposed.

7. Investigation of Other Projects under the Same GST Registration:
The Authority noted that the Respondent might be executing other projects under the same GST registration. The DGAP was directed to investigate other projects to determine if the Respondent was liable to pass on the ITC benefit in those projects as well.

Conclusion:
The Respondent was found to have profiteered an amount of Rs. 7,90,95,475/-. The Respondent was directed to pass on the profiteered amount along with interest at 18% to the homebuyers within three months. The DGAP was also directed to investigate other projects under the same GST registration. The jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner was instructed to ensure compliance and submit a report within four months.

---