Construction service provider failed to pass Input Tax Credit benefits under Section 171 CGST Act reinvestigation ordered

The CCI found that the respondent construction service provider failed to pass on Input Tax Credit benefits to the petitioner through commensurate price reduction, violating Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017. The CCI rejected the DGAP report dated 27.02.2023 and directed DGAP to reinvestigate under Rule 133(4) of CGST Rules, 2017, recalculating the profiteered amount if necessary. The respondent was ordered to provide full assistance and required documentation during the reinvestigation. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

---

---

Issues:
Allegation of profiteering in construction service post-GST implementation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Investigation: The case involved an allegation of profiteering in a construction service post-GST implementation. The Director General of Anti-Profiteering conducted a detailed investigation based on a reference received from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering. The Applicant alleged that the Respondent did not pass on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to customers as required under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.

2. Investigation Findings: The investigation covered the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.05.2022. The Respondent claimed that prices quoted to customers post-GST already included the benefit of ITC. However, the DGAP found discrepancies in the submission of certified sale deeds and lack of verification from buyers. The Respondent was found to have benefited from additional ITC post-GST implementation.

3. Profiteering Amount: The DGAP concluded that the Respondent had profiteered an amount of Rs. 3,00,18,756/- in respect of 337 buyers, inclusive of GST. Out of 521 flats in the project, 146 were unsold, and 238 were booked post-GST without passing on ITC benefits to buyers.

4. Commission's Notice and Respondent's Submissions: The Commission issued a notice to the Respondent to explain the DGAP's report. The Respondent disagreed with the profiteering amount and claimed that prices to post-GST buyers already included ITC benefits. The Respondent also mentioned that certified sale deeds were sent by the Sub-Registrar but not considered by the DGAP.

5. Commission's Decision: After considering the DGAP's report, Respondent's submissions, and lack of certified sale deeds verification, the Commission directed the DGAP to re-examine the sale deeds and conduct a thorough reinvestigation. The Commission did not accept the initial report and directed further investigation under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

6. Conclusion: The Commission's decision highlighted the need for verification of the Respondent's claim regarding prices quoted to customers post-GST and directed a re-examination of sale deeds. The DGAP was instructed to investigate further and recalculate the profiteered amount if necessary, with the Respondent required to provide necessary assistance and documents during the investigation process.

---