<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Profiteering allegations dismissed for post-GST real estate project charging 8% GST + ITC.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80644</link>
    <description>The respondent commenced a real estate project &quot;Swastik Heights&quot; in the post-GST regime, with commencement certificate issued on 08.03.2018 and GST registration effective from 27.02.2018. Initially, GST was charged at 8% with input tax credit (ITC). From 01.04.2019, the respondent had the option to charge either 8% GST with ITC or 1% without ITC, but continued charging 8% with ITC. The Commission observed that since the project commenced in the post-GST period, there was no benefit of rate reduction or additional ITC compared to the pre-GST period that the respondent was obligated to pass on to buyers u/s 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the allegations of profiteering were found untenable, and proceedings were dropped.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:16:11 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:16:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Profiteering allegations dismissed for post-GST real estate project charging 8% GST + ITC.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80644</link>
      <description>The respondent commenced a real estate project &quot;Swastik Heights&quot; in the post-GST regime, with commencement certificate issued on 08.03.2018 and GST registration effective from 27.02.2018. Initially, GST was charged at 8% with input tax credit (ITC). From 01.04.2019, the respondent had the option to charge either 8% GST with ITC or 1% without ITC, but continued charging 8% with ITC. The Commission observed that since the project commenced in the post-GST period, there was no benefit of rate reduction or additional ITC compared to the pre-GST period that the respondent was obligated to pass on to buyers u/s 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the allegations of profiteering were found untenable, and proceedings were dropped.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:16:11 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>