AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1082
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mittee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 (2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of flats in the Respondents project "Green Court" situated in Sector 90, Gurugram, Haryana. Sh. Shaurabh Prabhakar has filed the above application on behalf of the Applicant No. 1. The above Applicants had alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit Of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to them by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flats, These complaints were examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering in its meetings held on 07.08.2018 & 08.08.201B and were forwarded to the DGAP for detailed investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Further, 05 more applications were forwarded to the DGAP by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering vide minutes of its meetings dated 06.09.2019, 04.10.2019 and 25-10.2018, As the investigation was already underway, these Applicants were made co-Applicants in the ongoing investigation. Therefore, the Report covers a total number of 12 applications filed against the Respondent. 2. The DGAP on receipt of the above minutes from the Standing Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on the benefit of additional ITC of GST to his customers. 3. The Respondent has also submitted the following documents along with his replies:- (a) Copies of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B Returns for the period from July, 2017 to August, 2018. (b) Copies of Tran-1 and Tran-2 Returns for the period July, 2017 to December, 2017. (c) Copy of Electronic Credit Ledger for the period from July, 2017 to August, 2018. (d) Copies of VAT Returns and ST-3 Returns for the period from April, 2016 to June 2017. (e) Coves of all Demand letters issued in the names of the Applicants. (f) Copies of CENVAT/lnput Tax Credit Register for the FY 2016-17, 2017-18 and from April, 2018 to August, 2018. (g) Details Of applicable tax rates, Pre-GST & Post-GST. (h) Copies of Balance Sheets for the FY 2016-17 & 2017-18. (i) Copy of Certificate regarding expenses and sources of funds. issued by M/s. Design Axis Architects and details of numbers of flats. (j) Details of VAT, Service Tax, ITC of VAT, CENVAT Credit for the period from April, 2016 to June, 2017 and output GST and ITC of GST for the period from July, 2017 to August 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts, the credit of which was not available in the pre-GST period and which was cost to the Respondent, may be correct but it was a fact that if such additional benefit was not passed on by the Respondent to the home buyers, it would amount to profiteering. Moreover, the profiteering, if any, has to be determined at given point of time. in terms of Rule 129 (6) of the Rules. Therefore, he has stated that the ITC available to the Respondent and the amount received by him from the Applicants and Other recipients post implementation of GST, has to be taken into account to determine whether the benefit of ITC has been passed on by the Respondent to the recipients. 6. The DGAP has also submitted that the other aspect to be borne in mind while determining profiteering was that para 5 of Schedule-III of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Activities or Transactions which shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services) read as "Sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule sale of building". Further clause (b) of Paragraph 5 of Schedule II of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read as "(b) construction of a complex, building....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under regular/normal Scheme under VAT in Haryana, he was eligible to avail credit of VAT paid on the inputs. The DGAP has further stated that though the Respondent has claimed credit of VAT paid on the inputs in the pre-GST period from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017, his output VAT liability has not been discharged in the above period. He has also submitted that the Respondent has claimed that the exact taxable value and his VAT liability would be known only when VAT assessment for the relevant period would be done and he would accordingly charge VAT from his customers and discharge his VAT liability. In support of his claim, the Respondent has submitted a copy of the agreement executed with the Applicant No. 5, wherein it has been mentioned that the applicable municipal tax, property tax, Service Tax, VAT, GST and/or any other tax or charges as per law, would be collected from the above Applicant retrospectively or prospectively, The DGAP has further submitted that as the Respondent had not mentioned any turnover in his VAT Returns or ST-3 Returns on account of exemption, the gross receipts from the homebuyers as per the homebuyers list, had been considered as the turnover for determin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction service, vide Notification No. 11/2017-CentraI Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. The effective GST rate on construction service in respect of affordable and low-cost housing was further reduced from 12% to 8%, vide Notification No. 1/2018-CentraI Tax (Rate) dated 25,012018. The DGAP has also contended that in view of the change in the GST rate after 01.07.2017, the issue of profiteering had been examined by him it-I two parts, i.e. by comparing the applicable tax rate and the availability of ITC during the pre-GST period from April, 2016 to June, 2017 when only VAT was payable with (1) the post-GST period from July, 2017 to 24.01.2018 when the effective GST rate was 12% and (2) with the GST period from 25.01.2018 to 31.08.2018 when the effective GST rate was 8%, Accordingly, on the basis of Table-B above, the comparative figures of tax rate, ratio of ITC to the Respondent's turnover in the pre-GST and post-GST periods, the recalibrated basic price on account of benefit Of ITC credit and the excess collection by the Respondent i.e. profiteering during the post-GST period, has been tabulated by the DCAP in the Table-'C' below:- Table-'C' (Amount in Rs.) S.No. Particulars....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent to the recipients or in other words, the profiteered amount during the period from 25.01.2018 to 31.08.2018, came to Rs. 2,62,16.996/- which includes 8% GST on the base profiteered amount of Rs. 2,42,74,996/-. Therefore, he has claimed that the total profiteered amount during the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.082018 came to 5,30,34,074/- which includes GST @12% or 8% on the base profiteered amount of Rs. 4,82,18,816/-. The home buyer and unit no. wise break-up of this amount was given by the DGAP as per Annexure-25 of his above Report. 10, The DGAP has also submitted that the Respondent was constructing a total number of 1658 flats however, bookings for only 1482 flats were made in the pre-GST period and no new booking had been made in the post-GST period, but the bookings of 98 flats have been cancelled. He has further submitted that the demands raised on all the 1384 home buyers (1482-98=1384) during the pre-GST period well as in the post-GST period under investigation w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31 .08.201B had been reconciled with the home buyers list. Therefore, he has claimed that the computation of profiteering has been done with respect to those flats only where demands....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cided to issue notice to the Respondent to explain why the Report furnished by the DGAP should not be accepted and his liability for violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 Should not be fixed. He was also directed to reply why penalty under Section 29, 122-127 of the above Act read with Rule 21 and 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 should also not be imposed on him. It was also decided to hear the above Applicants and the Respondent on 27-03.2019 which postponed to 12.04.2019 on the request of the Respondent. On 12.04.2019 Sh. Saurabh Prabhakar appeared for the Applicant No. 1, Smt. Sangeeta Ahlawat Applicant No. 4, Shi. Manish Malik Applicant No. 9 were present in person, Sh. Akshat Aggarwal, Deputy Commissioner was present for the DGAP while Sh. Narendra Kumar, CA, Authorised Representative appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Further hearings were held on 26.04.2019, 18.06.2019. The Respondent has filed written submissions dated 12.04.2019, 26.04.2019, 18.06.2019, 30.08.2019 and 13.11.2019 which are summed up as follows:- I. That the DGAP has not considered provision of section 171 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (i.e. CCST Act, 2017)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Sales Tax (partially), Entertainment Tax, Luxury Tax, Betting, Gambling and lottery Tax, surcharges and State cesses Since in the pre-GST regime, Excise Duty credit was not allowed to him While ITC On VAT was allowed so 50% Of the Excise Duty amount of out of total amount of Rs. 1,52,31,605/- out of total amount of Rs. 3,04,63,210/- was payable to the customers as benefit of GST under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, This has been calculated on the basic purchase price of materials purchased during the period from July, 2017 to March, 2019 on which Excise Duty was applicable before the GST regime but credit of Excise Duty was not allowed to him, He has also submitted that he has not reduced that ITC amount which would be cost him at the time of completion of the project in the above calculation of the Excise Duty amount of Rs. 3,04,63,210/- and he was ready to pay Rs. 1,52,31,605/- as a GST benefit to his customers. V. That the documents submitted by him on 18.06.2019 were confidential because he has provided copies of various returns and requested not to share them with any other person. VI. That as per the Notification No. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....27,86,911 Column 1*9 11. GST @ 12% / 8% 3,51,18,044 2,48,10,924 599,28,968 - 12. Commensurate demand price (total of Turnover + GST) 32,77,68,411 3,49,47,468 6,27,15,879 Column 10+11 13. Excess collection of demand or profiteering amount 4,26,33,229 2,71,65,732 697,98,961 Column 1+2 minus 12 As against total profiteering of Rs. 5,30,34,074/- as per Table 'C' of the DGAPs Report dated 28.02.2019, the profiteering worked out to be Rs. 6,67,98,961/-. (iii) That as per Table B of the Report, calculation has been made in column No. 10 & 11 With regard to the saleable area and the sold area relevant to turnover however, in this regard, it was mentioned by the above Applicants that the total output liability was based on the turnover on monthly basis and GST was collected on that turnover only hence, any reduction due to sold area as against the saleable area has no relevance. As and when unsold saleable area would be sold, proportionate GST would be determined during that particular month and output liability would again be liable to be paid either es set-off against the ITC or in cash. Hence, giving any discount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....07.2017. Therefore, due to non-compliance of the above it would not be proper to allow ITC @ 0.49% to the Respondent which has been calculated on the gross receipts by the DCAP on his own, and deducted I reduced from the ITC benefit of 7.73% arrived at by the DGAP in the post GST era. Any deduction as has been mentioned in the above statement in column no, 7 should not be made from the figures arrived by the Applicants which was 12% prior to 25.01.2018 and 7.992% after 25.01.2018. (x) That the additional ITC of 12% prior to 25.01.2018 and 7.992% after 25.01.2018 should have resulted in commensurate reduction in the base price as wall as cum-tax-price, therefore, in terms of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017, the benefit of the additional ITC that has accrued to the Respondent, needed to be passed on to the recipients. (xi) That the total amount of profiteering was as follows: From 01.07.2017 to 24.01.2018 Rs. 4,26,33,229 After 25.01.2018 to 31.08.2018 - Rs. 2,71,65,732 Total - Rs. 6,97,98,961 The above amount was payable as ITC refund alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the due date until the date of refund to all the existing buyer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh value apartments, The Respondent was not being asked to extend this benefit out of his own account and he was only liable to pass on the benefit of ITC which has become due to him by virtue of the grant of ITC on the Construction Service by the Government. (xvii) That with the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) with effect from 01.07.2017, the Govt. has repeatedly clarified that under the GST full ITC was available for offsetting the headline rate of 12% and therefore, the input taxes embedded in the flat should not form a part of the cost of the flat. The input credits should take care of the headline rate of 12% and it was for this reason that refund of overflow of ITC to the Builders has been disallowed. (xviii) That with effect from 25.01.2018, the Govt. has clarified that the builder or developer would not be required to pay GST on the construction service of fiats etc, in cash but would have enough ITC in his books to pay the output GST and hence, he Should not recover GST payable on the flats from the buyers. He can recover GST from the buyers of lats only if he recalibrated the cost of the fiat after factoring in the full ITC available in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot applicable in the present case since on the un-sold flats when sold on or after 01.07.2017, full ITC could be claimed by the Respondent. Applicability of Sac 17 (3) Should also be taken into consideration in conjunction with Section 2(106). (xxiii) That had there been no ITC set off admissible to the Respondent, the entire amount of GST collected from the customers, was required to be deposited with the revenue authorities during the same month. Since as per CGST Act, 2017, payment of entire GST amount has been permitted to be set-off against the ITC admissible any amount which is set-off by the Respondent during a particular period has to be allowed as ITC benefit to the buyers during that particular period / month only, If the above method was taken into consideration then the proportionate ITC for unsold flats would be required to be reversed in each tax period. Thus. the entire amount of GST collected from the customers in proportion to unsold flats. would be required to be deposited with the revenue authorities during the respective month in cash. For the purpose of calculation of percentage of profiteering in the pre and post-GST scenario, the apportioning of ITC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TC benefit could be passed on at the time of completion of the project only, however, the above benefit of ITC has to be passed on to the buyers at the time of demand after commensurate reduction in price fixed prior to 01.07.2017. The logic of payment of Excise Duty from 01.07.2017 was urn-warranted as the admissible amount of ITC has already been availed by the Respondent in his GSTR-3B Returns on monthly basis. (xxvii) That with regard to page No, 5 of the submissions of the Respondent, it is stated that calculations made by DGAP prior to 01.07.2017 and on and after 01.07.2017 were correct. However, the percentage of benefit of ITC would increase after correction of the arithmetical errors, and also by not allowing any reduction of ITC benefit due to un-sold and saleable area. (xxvii) That the Respondent never had any intention to pass on the benefit of ITC in case he wanted to do so he could have approached the Advance Ruling Authority as provided under Chapter XVII (18) of CGST Act, 2017 to seek clarification for computation of the exempt ITC as per Section 97 (2) (d) of the above Act which states as under: "97. (1) An applicant desirous of obtaining....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... component, as follows:- As per Table 'F' at page No. 9 of the Report: Column 6 - Total Basic Demand raised during July; 2017 to August, 2018 = Rs. 66,60,05,750 Column 7 - GST charged @ 12% & 8% = Rs. 6,65,09,090 Total Demand (A) = Rs. 73,25,14,840/- Column 9- Re-calibrated price =Rs. 61,77,86,934 Column 10-GST @ 12% & 8% = Rs. 6,16,93,832 Commensurate demand price (B) = Rs. 67,94,80,766 Profiteered Amount (A)-(B) = Rs. 5,30,34,074 Therefore, the net profiteered amount Rs. 5,30,34,074/- which should not include 12% or 8% GST which would further reduce the amount of profiteering, However, above figures were hypothetical since the entire calculations were required to be made afresh in view of the above arithmetical errors Thus, the excess collection of demand or profiteering amount worked out to be Rs. 6,97,98,961/- as per Annexure-I, without giving any consideration of unsold and saleable area as erroneously calculated by the DGAP. (xxxiii) That the methodology used for the computation of profiteering employed by the DGAP was different than what has been prescribed in the Statute with regard to saleable and un-sold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were earlier missing in the provisions hence the calculation of exempt ITC was not in line with the intent of the statute. The above clarifications have been able to remove the anomaly which was present in the statute and it was mentioned that they were clarificatory in nature hence they should be applied retrospectively. (xxxv) The above Applicants have also relied upon the Principles of Statutory Interpretation provided by Justice G.P. Singh which while dealing with the operation of the fiscal statutes elaborate the principles of statutory interpretation in the following words:- "Fiscal legislation imposing liability is generally governed by the normal(presumption that it is not retrospective and it is a cardinal principle of the tax Idol that the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. The above rule applies to the charging section and other substantive provisions such as a provision imposing penalty and does not apply to machinery or procedural provisions of a taxing Act which are generally retrospective and apply even to pending proceedings." (xxxvi) The above Applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... General Provision as well as specific provision, the latter must prevail. The Court should examine every word of a statute in its context and must use context in its widest sense, [paras 27, 28] [21-D-F]" (xxxviii) The above Applicant have also claimed that similar interpretations were provided in the following judgements:- 1. Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan v. M/s. Binani Cement Ltd. & another (Civil Appeal No. 336 of 2003) = 2014 (3) TMI 905 - SUPREME COURT. 2. LIC v. D.J. Bahadur (1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981 (1) SCR 1083 = 1980 (11) TMI 157 - SUPREME COURT. 3. Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. State of Bihar (1999) 7 SCC 76 = 1999 (8) TMI 761 - SUPREME COURT. (xxxix) That even if the above amendments were applied retrospectively, there would be no incremental liability on the Respondent and he would not be required to reverse ITC though the language of the above provisions suggested otherwise. (xl) That the Construction Supply was very different from the Supply of Goods or Supply of Services. In case of Construction Supply the transaction of sale was spread over a period of time which covered multiple assessment tax period. Further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ications, the Respondent has worked out that actual benefit of Excise Duty amounted to Rs. 3,04,63,210/- which pertained to both the sold and unsold units calculated on the basis of basic purchase price of materials purchased during the period from July, 2017 to March, 2019 on which Excise Duty was applicable in the erstwhile regime but no credit for the same was available to the Respondent. 14, The DGAP has also submitted that the point raised by the Respondent regarding the additional ITC on account of Central Excise Duty has been addressed in pars 15 of his Report dated 28.02.2019 submitted by him. He has further submitted that it was a fact that in the pre-GST period Central Excise Duty component on the inputs purchased by the Respondent was a cost to the Respondent, as it was built in the cost of purchases made but credit for the same was not available in terms of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and with the implementation of GST, Central Excise Duty has been subsumed within GST and credit for the same was available to Respondent, which was additional benefit of ITC available to him. The DGAP has also claimed that the Respondent's claim regarding Service Tax exemption in his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....put tax credit to be calculated at the time of completion of project only." He has further intimated that the Respondent has requested for approval to pay the profiteered amount. 16. The DGAP has also argued that as regards the Respondent's submission that he has not considered/reduced that ITC which would be cost to the Respondent at the time of completion of the project in the calculation of Excise Duty component and the above figure as claimed was for the period from July. 2017 to March, 2019 and computation of profiteering has been done for the period from July, 2017 to August, 2016 by the DGAP, and dealt in Para 8 and pars 25 of the DGAP's Investigation Report dated 28.02.2019. Para 25 of the Report has been reproduced below:- "As aforementioned, the present investigation covers the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 Profiteering. If any for the period post August; 2018 has not been examined as the exact quantum of input tax credit that will be available to the Respondent in future, cannot be determined at this stage when the construction of the project is yet to be completed."' 17. The DGAP has also contended that the Respondent has submitted that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also revealed from the record that the Respondent has admitted in his submissions that he was entitled to CENVAT Credit under the Service Tax law and the ITC under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Service Tax was exempted later on through Notification No. 09/2016-Service Tax dated 01.03.2016 in the case of Affordable Housing Schemes and he was not charging Service Tax from his customers whereas he was availing ITC on VAT under the regular scheme to discharge his VAT liability. He has also admitted that he was not allowed CENVAT Credit of Excise Duty which he was paying and hence, this Duty was cost to hire before, however. after coming in to force of the GST he had become eligible to claim benefit of ITC on it which he was ready to pass on to his customers subject to the adjustment of 1TC which would be cost to him at the time of completion of the project. However, the above contention of the Respondent related to the adjustment of the ITC at the time of handing over of the possession is not correct as he is not required to pay more than what he has got as benefit to ITC to his customers as per the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act and hence, he can not retain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the unutilized ITC available to him at the time of completion of the project. The above provision is correct as the Respondent cannot get it refunded at the time of completion of the project and it is required to be reversed as per clause (b) of Schedule-II of the CGST Act, 2017 as he would not have passed its benefit as the flats had remained unsold.. 23. The Applicants No. 1 to 12 have stated in their submissions that the amount of profiteering should be ordered to be passed on to them alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. as an interim relief. However, there is no provision of granting interim relief in the CGST Acts 2017 and hence their contention cannot be accepted. 24. The above Applicants have also stated that the Respondent has deposited total amount of Rs. 33,625/- only in cash and the remaining amount of output liability has been met by him from the ITC. They have also computed the amount of ITC as Rs. 6,64,75,465/- which has been paid by him from the ITC and also computed the profiteered amount as Rs. 6,97,98,961/- as against the total profiteering of Rs, 5,30,34,074/- calculated as per Table 'C' of the DGAP's Report dated 28.02.2019. The above figure of Rs. 6,64,1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oned that the Respondent has not mentioned any turnover in his VAT Returns or ST-3 Returns on account of exemption prior to 01.07.2017, therefore, due to the above non-compliance benefit of ITC @ 0.49% for the pre-GST period should not be allowed to the Respondent. Perusal of para 17 shows that no such claim has been made by the DGAP in this para, hence, the above contention is wrong. 31. The above Applicants have also pleaded that Respondent has not issued tax invoices to them in the prescribed format as per the CGST Act, 2017 and hence action should be taken against him. in this connection the Applicants are themselves competent to lodge complaint against the Respondent before the appropriate tax authority and hence no action is required to be taken by this Authority. 32. The Applicants have further pleaded that letter dated 20.02.2019, written by the Respondent to the DGAP stated that the VAT was going to be recovered from the customers at the time of possession of the flats therefore, the SGST amount could not be considered as benefit to be passed on to the customers under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, In this connection it would be relevant to mention that payment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TC on unsold flats would be required to be reversed in each tax period and thus, the entire amount of GST collected from the customers in proportion to unsold flats, would be required to be deposited with the revenue authorities during the respective month in cash. The above contention of the Applicants is incorrect as there is no question of depositing of the GST which has been paid by the other buyers against the unsold flats as in such a situation they would have to pay more GST than what they are required to pay which would be against the provisions of the above Act. There is also no question of depositing of deferred amount of ITC. for allowing the benefit to the prospective buyers on monthly basis in cash as in case it is deposited the Respondent cannot re-caliberate his prices to pass on the benefit of ITC to such buyers. There is also no issue of adequate oversight by the tax authorities on such ITC as it would be reflected in the Retunes and would be liable to be scrutinized at the time of assessment. 37. The above Applicants have also alleged that details of the materials purchased by the Respondent during the period from July, 2017 to August, 2016 were without any app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Respondent has deposited an amount of Rs. 33,625/- only in cash, remaining amount of Rs. 5,64,75,465/ has been paid out of the ITC however, in Table-'B' of the DGAP's Report, ITC availed has been shown as Rs. 6,22,18,349/-. The DGAP has taken the above figure of ITC as per the Returns filed by the Respondent therefore, the above claim of the Applicants is not correct. The manner of calculation of the ITC by the Applicants is also incorrect as the same cannot be computed by subtracting the amount of ITC paid in cash as it is b-e calculated on the basis of the GSTR-3B Returns. 42. The above Applicants have also submitted that in para 20 of the DGAP's Report, the net amount of excess collection of Demand or the profiteered amount has been calculated as Rs. 5,30,34,074/- which was the net amount without any GST component and hence the profiteered amount should not be reduced. However, perusal of para 20 shows that the DGAP has computed the profiteered amount as Rs, 4,62,18,816/- without GST and Rs. 5,30,34,074/- with GST which is based on the Returns filed of ITC and turnover filed by the Respondent and hence the above contention of the Applicants cannot be accepted. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x v. Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited = 2008 (8) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT also does not help the Applicants as no clarificatory amendment has been made in the CGST Act, 2017 with the intention of implementing it retrospectively. In the case of Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. 1987 SCR (2) 1 = 1987 (1) TMI 452 - SUPREME COURT, interpretation of the definition of "Price Chit" was involved under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act. 1978, Since no interpretation of the definition of Rules 42 and 43 is involved in the facts of the present case hence the law settled in the above case is not being followed. In the case of Commercial Tax Officer Rajasthan v. M/s. Binani Cement Ltd. & another (Civil Appeal No. 336 of 2003) = 2014 (3) TMI 905 - SUPREME COURT issue involved was interpretation of the "Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for industries 1989' and the facts of the above case are not similar to the facts of the present case and hence, the above case cannot help the cause of the Applicants. In the case of LIC v. D. J. Bahadur (1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981 (1) SCR 1083 = 1980 (11) TMI 157 - SUPREME COURT it was required to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble. Since, the DGAP has prepared the above Table as per the Returns filed by the Respondent during the pre-GST and the post-GST and also as per the information supplied by the Respondent himself therefore, the above ratios calculated by the DGAP can be considered to be correct. 47. It is further apparent from Table C supra that the additional ITC of 7.24% of the turnover, should have resulted in commensurate reduction in the base price as well as the cum-tax-price to be charged by the Respondent. Accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 171 of the Central goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the benefit of the additional ITC which has accrued to the Respondent in the post-GST period is required to be passed on to the above Applicants as well as the other home buyers. Based on the amount collected by the Respondent from the above Applicants and the other home buyers during the period from 01.07.2017 to 24.01.2018, the amount of benefit of ITC which is required to be passed on by the Respondents to the recipients or in other words, the profiteered amount comes to Rs. 2,68,17,079/- which includes 12% GST on the base profiteered amount of Rs. 2,3943,820/-. Further, the amount of ....