Real estate developer escapes anti-profiteering charges under Section 171 CGST Act for two housing projects

CCI examined anti-profiteering provisions under Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 against a real estate developer regarding multiple projects. For project Vishvvanath Sarathya, CCI held anti-profiteering provisions inapplicable as building use permission was obtained on 24.01.2017 in pre-GST regime. For project Vishwanath Samam, which commenced in 2019 post-GST implementation, CCI found no pre-GST sales for price comparison and no CENVAT credit availability for ITC comparison. Consequently, anti-profiteering provisions were deemed inapplicable to both projects, and proceedings under Rule 133(5) of CGST Rules, 2017 were dropped.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the investigation of profiteering in relation to projects under the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, specifically focusing on whether the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was passed on to buyers as per Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Summary of Judgment:

Investigation Initiated by DGAP:
The National Anti-Profiteering Authority directed the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to investigate profiteering in projects other than "VISHVVANATH SARATHYA" under the same GST Registration No. The DGAP conducted investigations in compliance with the NAA's directives and issued notices to the Respondent for information on projects executed under the same GST Registration No. The investigation period covered was from July 2017 to August 2022, with a deadline set for completion by February 28, 2023.

Submission of Details by Respondent:
The Respondent provided various data and documents related to projects, including details of projects, tax returns, credit ledgers, balance sheets, and project statuses. The Respondent detailed the commencement and completion dates of projects, emphasizing that certain projects were executed entirely in the pre-GST or post-GST era.

Conclusion of DGAP:
The DGAP concluded that the Respondent did not contravene Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, which requires passing on the benefit of ITC to recipients through price reductions.

Commission's Findings:
Upon reviewing the DGAP's report and documents, the Commission noted the execution of three projects by the Respondent. The Commission acknowledged the NAA's previous determination of profiteering in one project. Regarding the other projects, the Commission found that anti-profiteering provisions did not apply. For the project executed in the pre-GST era, and the project commenced after GST implementation with no pre-GST sales, the Commission deemed Section 171 inapplicable.

Decision of the Commission:
Based on the findings, the Commission determined that the case did not fall under the Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the Respondent were dropped. The order was to be provided to all parties involved, and the case file was to be closed after completion.

---