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>Construction Project Profiteering Case Dismissed After Single Project Investigation Under Section 171 of CGST Act</h1> <h3>Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Versus M/s. Maheshwari Infratech Pvt Ltd.,</h3> The SC reviewed a case involving alleged profiteering by a respondent in construction projects. After DGAP investigation confirmed only one project ... Profiteering - benefit of input tax credit not passed on - Contravention of Section 171 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The Commission has carefully considered the Report of the DGAP and the other material placed on record and finds that the DGAP, in pursuance to the Order in SH. VIVEK GUPTA, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEERING, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES & CUSTOMS, VERSUS M/S. MAHESHWARI INFRATECH PVT LTD.,[2022 (10) TMI 369 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY], has investigated the matter pertaining to the other projects executed by the Respondent in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Rules made there under so as to determine whether there has been any profiteering by the Respondent and found that no other project has been executed by the Respondent except the project “U-Faria”, Profiteering in respect of which has already been determined by the NAA. The above fact has also been corroborated from the website of the UP RERA as well as the reply of the Commissioner State Tax UP as per the report of the DGAP. The Commission finds that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in the case of the other projects of the Respondent and therefore, the proceedings are accordingly dropped against the Respondent. Issues involved:The issues involved in this case are related to profiteering by the Respondent in projects other than the 'U-Faria' project, as investigated by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) and the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NM).Summary:The DGAP's Investigation Report revealed that the Respondent had profiteered an amount while executing the 'U-Faria' project, which was required to be passed on to the shop buyers. The NM determined the profiteered amount and ordered the Respondent to pass on the benefit. Additionally, the NM directed the DGAP to investigate profiteering in relation to other projects executed by the Respondent under the same GST registration. In response, the DGAP submitted a report stating that the Respondent had not undertaken any other construction project except 'U-Faria', which had already been investigated and profiteering determined. Therefore, the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 were not applicable in this case.The Competition Commission carefully considered the DGAP's report and other material, confirming that no other projects were executed by the Respondent except 'U-Faria'. This fact was corroborated by the UP RERA website and the reply of the Commissioner State Tax UP. Consequently, the Commission found that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 did not apply to the other projects of the Respondent, leading to the proceedings being dropped against the Respondent.The Commission ordered that a copy of this decision be provided to the Respondent and the DGAP at no cost, and the case file be closed upon completion.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
