TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2B (2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applicant No, had alleged profiteering by the Respondent while he had purchased Flat no. 6B, Tower No. 16, in the Respondent's project "Palm Wood Royal Gulmohar Green" situated at Plot No. 95, Loni Road, Opp. Hindon Airbase, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad-201201. The above Applicant had also alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) although he had charged GST @ 12% w.e.f. 01.07.2017 from him. The above Committee had examined the application and after its prime facie satisfaction that the Respondent had Violated the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. had sent the same with Its recommendation for necessary action to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering on 03.0B.2018 as per the provisions of Rule 12B (2) of the CGST Rules, 2017 This application was duly considered by the Standing Committee on Anti, profiteering in its meeting held on 06.09.2018 and was referred to the DGAP for conducting detailed investigation on the allegations levelled by the Applicant No.1. 2. The DGAP has stated In his Report dated 03.04.2019 that the above flat was booked by the Applicant No.1 on 10.01 2017 before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Notice dated 15.10.2018, the Respondent has replied vide his letters/emails dated 31.10.2018, 10.11.2018, 24.12.2018 03.01.2019, 04.02.2019, 25.03.2019 and 29.03.2019. The contents of the replies given by the Respondent have been given in brief by the DGAP as under:- a) The Respondent stated that his project "Gulmohar Greens" had four different categories of flats, "Palm Wood Royal" being one of them. b) Possession of the flat was offered to the Applicant No. 1, although no Completion Certificate or Occupancy Certificate issued by any competent authority, was available. c) The Respondent had two projects- a residential project by the name of 'Gulmohar Greens' and a commercial project by the name of 'Anandam Square'. The Respondent provided bifurcation of the turnover from the said projects in both pre-GST and post-GST periods. d) The Respondent stated that there was no substantial benefit of ITC under the GST regime and to the extent there was benefit of ITC, it was passed on to his recipients by way of reduction in prices. In case of the Applicant No. 1, the Respondent had offered. like other buyers in the project, an amount of Rs. 75,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cable taxes. The details of the payment plan as per the agreement, are furnished in Table below:- Table- 'B' (Amount in Rs.) S. No. Payment Stages Basic Value AMC Service Tax Maintenance Security Total 1. At the time of Booking 4,78,500 - 21,533 - 5,00,033 2. On initiation of offer of possession 57,33,250 73,250 2,68,984 15,000 60,90,484 Total 62,11,750 73,250 2,90,517 15,000 65,90,517 8. The DGAP has also submitted that the contention of the Respondent that given his business model. there was no substantial benefit of ITC under the GST regime and whatever benefit was there, it was passed on to the customers by way of discounts, has no merit as no logical reasoning was provided by the Respondent regarding the method of computation and determination of benefit that had accrued to him post-GST due to benefit of additional ITC and no conclusive evidence in support of his claim that such benefit had been passed on. was provided, The DGAP has further submitted that the Respondent's submission that the Applicant' No. 1's intentions were mala fide in alleging profiteering, as the above Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e turnover for the pre-GST period by the DGAP. Further, he has stated that post-GST, the Respondent could avail the ITC of GST paid on all the inputs and input service. 11. The DGAP on scrutiny of the data submitted by the Respondent has found that there was a mismatch in the instalments paid and due from the customers as per the homebuyers list and its reconciliation with the turnover reported in the GSTR-3B and ST-3 Returns. Similarly, there was a mismatch in the credit availed in the pre and post-GST era as shown in the ST-3 and GSTR-3B Returns with the reconciliation figures of credit. The DGAP has also claimed that despite repeated requests, the Respondent had failed to submit GSTR-I Returns for the period from May 2018, to September, 2018 and Electronic Credit Ledger for the period from April, 2018 to September. 2018. In one of his replies dated 03.01.2019, the Respondent had submitted that due to shortage of funds, he was unable to furnish the GSTR-1 Returns for the period from May, 2018 onwards. The DGAP has further claimed that from the GST portal, it was observed that the GST registration of the Respondent was cancelled on 06.12.2018. The DGAP has also reported that fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... @4.5% with the post-CST period (July, 2017 to September, 2018) when the effective CST rate was 12% (GST @18% alongwith 1/3rd abatement on value) on construction service, fixed vide Notification No- 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. On the basis of the figures contained in the above Table, the comparative figures of ITC availed/available during the pre-GST period and post-GST period and the profiteered amount/excess collection have been furnished by the DGAP as per Table-'D' as under:- Table-'D' (Amount in Rs.) S.No. Particular Pre-GST Post-GST 1 Period A April, 2016 to June, 2017 July, 2017 to Sep 2018 2 Output tax rate (%) B 4.50% 12.00% 3 Ratio of CENVAT/Input Tax Credit to Total Turnover as per Table - E above (%) C 3.23% 6.52% 4 Increase in input tax credit availed post-GST (%) D - 3.29% 5 Analysis of Increase in input tax credit; 6 Total Basic cost Demand raised during July, 2017 to September, 2018 as per home-buyers data E 24,84,23,360 7 GST charged F=E*12% 2,98,10,803 8 Tota....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 03.05.2019 and 22.05.2019. During the course of the hearings the Applicant No. 1 was represented by Sh. A.B. Singh. Authorised Representative of the Applicant No. l, the DGAP was represented by Smt, Gayatri, Deputy Commissioner and the Respondent was represented by Sh. B.K. Bansal. Advocate. Sh. Sharan Bansal, Advocate, Sh. Piyush Makkar, CA and Sh. Raghav Singhali Advocate. 15. The Respondent vide his reply dated 03.05.2019 has denied the allegations regarding profiteering and claimed that the methodology used by the DGAP was faulty and had no legal backing in as far as excluding the credit of VAT available to the Respondent during the pre-GST era from the calculations of ratios of credit to the turnover was concerned. He further claimed that the factual errors in the calculations as detailed below had serious implications on the amount of profiteering:- a) That the total turnover of the Respondent as reflected at Serial No. 6 of Table-C of the DGAP's Report and Serial No. 6 of Table-D of the Report for the post-GST period were different from each other and the correct amount of turnover during the relevant period was Rs. 22,70,04,666/- only which was related to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the buyers inspite of his having submitted the details to the DGAP during the investigation and the only reason given in this regard was that the Respondent had not specified the basis of calculation for the benefit passed on to individual buyers whereas he has specified the basis of calculation along with an illustration and given detailed account of the total benefit passed on to individual buyers on construction service which amounted to a total of Rs. 16.66,115/- in the form of reduction in the GST collected from the buyers on accounts of increased availment of ITC, His formula for calculation simply divided the extra burden of increased tax rate under GST regime into two equal halves, one of which has been borne by the buyer and the other half has been refunded to each buyer through cheques by him. 17. The calculations as per the above formula as submitted by the Respondent are as below:- Service Tax Rate in pre-GST period: 4.5% of basic cost GST Rate In the post-GST period: 12% of basic cost Extra Burden: 7.5% i.e. (12%-4.5%=7.5%) The Respondent has claimed that half of the extra burden i.e. 3.75% (7.5% / 2=3.75%) of the basic cost as pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted as the total VAT credit taken and the VAT paid in the pre-GST period was for a particular value of the turnover of sale of flats during the above period He has also submitted that as the Service Tax and VAT were paid on a monthly basis the figure of VAT credit availed during a month was directly relatable to the total turnover reflected in the monthly figures for calculation of payment of Service Tax. Therefore, the Respondent has concluded that the DGAP has committed a serious error in excluding the credit of VAT in the calculations of entitlement of total credit available to him during the pre-GST period. He has also argued that as the GST levied with effect from 01.07.2017 has subsumed a large number of taxes therefore, a comparison of the credit entitlement during the pre-GST and the post-GST period has to essentially incorporate the credit of all the taxes which were available to the him during the pre-GST era. He has further argued that by excluding the credit of VAT, the DGAP has tried to compare the non-comparables and tilted the calculations against him. He has also pleaded that if it was intended to exclude credit of VAT in the pre-GST period from the scope of investi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pee to him. He has further requested to recover the additional ITC from the Respondent with 28% interest which the Respondent had charged from his customers. He has also accepted that once he was offered a cheque of Rs. 75,000/- by the Respondent but it was post dated and hence he had not accepted it as no logic had been provided by the Respondent of the basis on which the above amount had been calculated. 23. The submissions dated 03.05.2019 filed by the Respondent were forwarded to the DGAP for his report. The DGAP has submitted revised investigation Report dated 30.05.2019, the brief facts of which are as follows:- a. That in respect of the total turnover and its reconciliation with the GSTR Returns for the period under investigation, the Respondent had failed to submit GSTR-I Returns for the period from May, 2018 to September, 2018 and hence, their reconciliation with the homebuyers data could not be carried out (Para 17 of the Report dated 03.04.2019). The homebuyers list was submitted by the Respondent after several reminders on 29.03.2019 (Annexure-11 of the Report dated 03.042019) which was still not reconciled with his GSTR-3B Returns. The Respondent. in his ea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18 Total (Pre-GST) (Post-GST) 1 2 3 4 (5)=(3)+(4) 6 7 (8)=(6)+(7) 1 CENVAT of Service Tax Paid on Input Services (A) 41,90,400 10,21,467 52,11,867 - - - 2 Credit of VAT Paid on Purchase of Inputs (B) 0 0 0 - - - 4 Input Tax Credit of GST Availed (C) - - - 1,40,68,228 53,25,878 1,93,94,105 5 Total CENVAT/VAT/Input Tax Credit Available (D)=(A)+(B) or (C) 41,90,400 10,21,467 52,11,867 1,40,68,228 53,25,878 1,93,94,105 6 Total Turnover (as per reconciliation of installment paid and due) (E) 12,31,99,617 24,84,23,380 7 Total Saleable Area (in sq. ft.) (F) 2,04,395 2,04,395 8 Area Sold relevant to Turnover as per Home buyers List (Flats sold upto 30.09.2018) (G) 1,35,855 1,54,365 9 Relevant CENVAT/INPUT TAX CREDIT (H)=[((D)*(G),(F)] 34,59,088 1,46,48,388 10 Ratio of CENVAT/Input Tax Credit to Turnover [(I)=(H)/(E)] 2.81% 5.90% Table -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the provisions of the UP state VAT law. The Respondent has also contended that he has filed monthly VAT Returns in which the credit of VAT has been duly allowed by the VAT authorities. The basis of levy of VAT on a builder providing construction service by way of sale of flats may be on deemed sale of goods, but the fact remained that the VAT paid by the Respondent and the credit of VAT admissible to him was not deemed or fictional but real. He has also argued that in the scheme of taxation the VAT was payable by the Respondent in this case and the payment of VAT and credit of VAT was not at all linked to the collection of VAT from the Respondent's customers, The non-collection of VAT from the customers in no way mitigated the Respondent's liability to pay VAT. Once the fact of payment of VAT by the Respondent was acknowledged by the DGAP, the credit of VAT admissible to him has also to be allowed irrespective of whether he has collected VAT from his Customers or not, He has further argued that as regards that there was no direct relationship between the turnover reported in the VAT Returns for the period from April, 2016 to June, 2017 and the actual consideration collec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....figure has to be same irrespective of whether the calculations were made for the pre-GST or the post-GST period, therefore, the calculations made in Table-C in the DGAP's Report dated 30.05.2019 were wrong. 27. The Respondent has also stated that the credit figures of residential project only should be considered and not of both the residential and the commercial project taken together as the two projects were altogether different from each other and were situated at a distance of about 8 Kms., supplying different kind of units viz. residential houses in the residential project and shops in the commercial project, with different usage, clientele and price structure, 28. The Respondent has also submitted that the DGAP in para 2.3.3 of His Report dated 30.05.2019 has mentioned that the figure of Rs, 22.7 Crore mentioned in Table-C of his Report dated 03.04.2019 was taken because the Respondent had provided incomplete information to which the Respondent has submitted that in the last updated information submitted by him to the DGAP on 29.03.2019 which was listed as Annexure-11 of the DGAP's Report dated 03.04.2019, he had given an exhaustive chart giving details of the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent in the pre-GST as well as post-GST period. 30. The Respondent has also mentioned that even if for the sake of argument the figure of turnover as arrived at by the DGAP was used, still there was no profiteering on his part as would be evident from the Table below, considering VAT and actual figures of credit for residential project only and area sold up to 30.09.2018 but taking turnover figure of Rs. 248423360/- (though not admitted):- S.No. Particular April, 16 to March, 17 April, 17 to June, 17 Total July, 17 to March, 18 April, to Sep., 2018 Total (Pre-GST) (Post-GST) 1 2 3 4 (5)=(3)+(4) 6 7 (8)=(6)+(7) 1 CENVAT of Service Tax Paid on Input Services (A) 3598519 821551 4420070 2 Credit of VAT Paid on Purchase of Inputs (B) 3358498 408738 3767236 4 Input Tax Credit of GST Availed (C) 11081099 3685752 14766851 5 Total CENVAT/VAT/Input Tax Credit Available (D)=(A)+(B) or (C) 6957017 1230289 8187306 11081099 3685752 14766851 6 Total Turnover (as per reconciliatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it for various options:- Case 1: Considering the residential project only: Scenario : When the actual figures for turnover and credit for the residential project only were taken. VAT credit was included and the area sold up to 30.09.2018 i.e. 1,54,365 sq. ft was considered for calculations in the pre-GST as well as the post-GST period:- Table C S.No. Particular April, 16 to March, 17 April, 17 to June, 17 Total July, 17 to March, 18 April, to Sep., 2018 Total (Pre-GST) (Post-GST) 1 2 3 4 (5)=(3)+(4) 6 7 (8)=(6)+(7) 1 CENVAT of Service Tax Paid on Input Services (A) 3598519 821551 4420070 2 Credit of VAT Paid on Purchase of Inputs (B) 3358498 408738 3767236 4 Input Tax Credit of GST Availed (C) 11081099 3685752 14766851 5 Total CENVAT/VAT/Input Tax Credit Available (D)=(A)+(B) or (C) 6957017 1230289 8187306 11081099 3685752 14766851 6 Total Turnover (as per reconciliation of installment paid and due) (E) 12319617 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct and commercial project together under single GST registration: Scenario 1: When the actual figures for turnover and credit for the residential project plus commercial project were taken together, VAT credit was included and the area sold up to 30.09.2018 i.e. 1,54,365 sq. ft. for the residential project + 31,543 sq. ft. for the commercial project = total sq. ft. was considered for the calculations in the pre-GST as well as the post-GST period:- Table-C S.No. Particular April, 16 to March, 17 April, 17 to June, 17 Total July, 17 to March, 18 April, to Sep., 2018 Total (Pre-GST) (Post-GST) 1 2 3 4 (5)=(3)+(4) 6 7 (8)=(6)+(7) 1 CENVAT of Service Tax Paid on Input Services (A) 4174693 1021455 5196148 2 Credit of VAT Paid on Purchase of Inputs (B) 4077703 478561 4556264 4 Input Tax Credit of GST Availed (C) 13240614 5220429 18461044 5 Total CENVAT/VAT/Input Tax Credit Available (D)=(A)+(B) or (C) 8252396 1500016 9752412 13240614 5220429 18461044 6 Total Turnover ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Area sold relevant to turnover as pe Home Buyers List (Flats sold upto 30.09.2018 (G) 142655 185908 9. Relevant CENVAT/ITC (H) = (D)*(G)/(F)] 5703213 14069377 10. Ratio of CENVAT/ITC to Turnover [(I) = (H)/(E)] 4.62 5.11 Profiteered % 0.4866 The Respondent has further stated that the alleged Profiteering Amount would be Rs. 15,01,958/- and the turnover and the credit figures were taken for construction service only i.e. after excluding the turnover for other charges and AMC and credit for AMC. In view of the above, the Respondent has submitted that even if the calculations were made by taking both the residential and commercial projects together and area sold upto 30.09.2018 was considered for calculations of ratios for the pre-GST and the post-GST period and the credit of VAT was included, there was no profiteering 34. The Applicant No. 1 vide his mail dated 06.06.2019 has Stated that the Respondent has provided names of only 30 beneficiaries to whom he had p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od (i.e. From July 2017 to Sep. 2018) for both the projects taken together (i.e. Gulmohar Green - residential + Anandam Square - Commercial) 20432887 Less Credit taken from TRAN-1 -1002748 Total Post GST Credit 19430139 Less Credit Relating to AMC (Advance Maintenance Charges Collected on behalf of Maintenance Agency) -969095 Total Credit relating to Construction service 18461044 Credit Relating to Anandam Square (Commercial Project) -3694193 Credit relating to Gulmohur Green (Residential Project) 14766851 36. The Applicant No. 1 vide his mail dated 10.08.2019 has also alleged that the Respondent had still not provided him the details which were asked by him. He has also requested to ask the Respondent to provide him with similar terms viz pricing and the GST relief etc.as was provided by the Respondent to Sl. No. 1 Sh. Deepak Kumar Sharma, unit No. T- 17-6D as per Annexure-4 of the Respondent's submissions dated 1206.2019. Again the Applicant No. 1 vide his mail dated 02.09.2019 has stated that the Respondent has charged GST @ 6% in the case of Mr. Deepak Kumar Sharma and he has questioned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering, had alleged that the Respondent was not passing on the benefit of ITC to him inspite of the fact that he was availing ITC on the purchase of inputs at higher rates of GST which had resulted in benefit of additional ITC to him and was also charging GST from him @12%. It is further revealed that the above complaint was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti- Profiteering in its meeting held on 06.09.2018 and was forwarded to the DGAP for investigation who vide his Report dated 03.04.2019 has found that the ITC as a percentage of the total turnover which was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period was 3.23% and during the post-GST period this ratio was 6.52% as per the Table-C mentioned above and therefore, the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the tune of 3.29% (6.52%-3.23%) of the total turnover which he was required to pass on to the flat buyers of this project, He has also claimed that the Respondent has not reduced the basic prices of his flats by 329% due to additional benefit of ITC and by charging GST at the increased rate of 12% on the pre-GST basic prices, he has contravened the provisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis for quantification for the same and therefore the DGAP has not considered this amount in the calculation Of profiteering. 41. The Respondent vide his reply dated 03.05.2019 has claimed that the methodology used by the DGAP was faulty as it excluded the credit of VAT available to the Respondent during the pre-CST era from the calculations of ratio of credit to the turnover. However, it is apparent from para 17 of the DGAP's Report dated 0304.2019 that the Respondent has discharged his output VAT liability on the deemed taxable value by adding 10% in the purchase price of the inputs as per the Annexure-6 of the DGAP's Report dated 03.04.2019 and no VAT has been charge by him from the home-buyers. As the taxable value for the purpose of output VAT liability of the Respondent was different from the actual base price collected from the homebuyers, the DGAP has neither considered the taxable value as reflected in the VAT Returns of the Respondent nor the VAT credit has been considered by him for computation of profiteering, instead the DGAP has taken into account the demands which have been shown in the home buyers list, as any variation in the credit/VAT liability of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the pre-GST as well as the post-GST period for both the projects together has been taken into account. Perusal of Serial No. 5 of the Report dated 03.04.2019 as well as the revised Report dated 30.05.2019 shows that an amount of Rs. 1,93,94,105/- has been shown as the ITC availed by the Respondent during the post-GST period. Since, the DGAP has conducted the present investigation in respect of the residential project only he has taken the above figure of ITC in respect of this project only. This figure is also based on the reconciliation statement of ITC furnished by the Respondent himself. Therefore, the above argument of the Respondent is incorrect. 45. The Respondent has also stated that the DGAP has not considered the fact of passing on the benefit of additional ITC in the post-GST period in the form of reduction in the GST collected from the buyers which amounted to total amount of Rs. 16,66.115/-. The Respondent has also contended that by applying the above formula, he has passed on substantial benefit of Rs. 26,97,253/- in ell on the basis that he has divided the extra burden of increased tax rate under GST regime into two equal halves, one of which has been borne by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it of ITC as there is no such entry in their account statements- Granting of rebates/discounts is the most prevalent practice followed in the construction industry to increase sales and hence the above rebate cannot be equated with the passing on of the benefit of ITC. 48. The Respondent has also not produced any reliable or cogent evidence either before the DGAP or this Authority in support of his contention that he has passed on the benefit of ITC by submitting the details of the entries made in his books of account or cheques issued to the buyers or the copies of the tax invoices/demand letters or the acknowledgements made by his customers of having received the benefit of ITC due to implementation of the CST, As discussed above the Respondent has only claimed to have passed on the discount/rebate on account of CST which cannot amount to passing on the benefit of ITC as per the provisions of Section 171 (l) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the above claim of the Respondent is frivolous and hence, the same cannot be accepted 49. The Respondent has also submitted that non-consideration of the availment of credit of VAT by the DGAP during the pre-GST period has serious impli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and other houses has been reduced to 1% and 5% respectively and hence the benefit of ITC would have to be reworked. However, it is clear from the record that the present investigation pertains to the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 and the above Notification would have effect prospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2019 only and hence the above pleading of the Respondent is not relevant. 52. It is also revealed from the revised Report dated 30.05.2019 that the DGAP on the basis of the submissions dated 03.05.2019 filed by the Respondent has revised the figures of the "Area Sold relevant to Turnover as per Home buyers List" and the "Relevant CENVAT/Input Tax Credit available" as per revised Table-C supra and has accordingly, he has reworked the "Ratio of CENVAT/ Input Tax Credit to Turnover" as 2.81% from the earlier 3.23% for the pre-GST period and from 6.52% to 5.90% for the post-GST period. As a result, the additional ITC in the post-GST period, as a percentage of the turnover, has been revised to 3.09% [5.90% (-) 2.81%], instead of 3.29%. As the "Ratio of CENVAT/Input Tax Credit to Turnover" in Table-C of the Report has been revised, the quantum of profiteering has also been revised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as included the ITC of VAT of Rs. 37,67,236/- and taken the area sold relevant to turnover as 1,54,675 sq. ft for both the pre and the post-GST periods whereas, as has been discussed supra, the above area is 1,35,655 sq. ft. for the pre-CST period and 1,54,365 sq. ft. for the post-GST period as per the home buyers list supplied by the Respondent himself. Since, the above computation of profiteering made by the Respondent is not based on the correct figure of the above area and ITC the same cannot be relied upon. 56. The Respondent has further mentioned that the profiteering should be computed in respect of the residential project only and not for the commercial project. He has accordingly worked out the ratio of CENVAT/ITC to turnover for the pre-GST period as 5.02% and 4.91% for the post-GST period and profiteering as -0.11%. He has also calculated the above ratios as 4.41%, 4.91% and 0.502234% for the residential project by including the ITC of VAT as per the area sold taken by the DGAP in revised Table-C supra and arrived at the profiteered amount of Rs. 12,76,906/-. He has also calculated the above ratios for both the residential and commercial projects together and claimed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondent in the post-GST period from July. 2017 to September, 2018 was Rs. 1,93,94,105/- and his turnover was Rs. 24,84,23,360/-. He has also sold an area of 1,54,365sq ft., relevant to the above turnover during the above period. The proportionate ITC availed by the Respondent was Rs. 1,46,46,988/- ori the basis of which ratio of ITC to turnover comes to 5.90%. Therefore. it is abundantly clear that the Respondent has benefited from the additional benefit of ITC to the tune of 3.09% (5.90%-2.81%) of the turnover which he is required to pass on to his customers as per the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act. Since the above figures of ITC and turnover have been taken form the Returns filed by the Respondent himself and the figures of sold area have been supplied by the Respondent himself, the same cannot be disputed by the Respondent and can be relied upon and accordingly. the above computations are held to be correct. Therefore, the amount is determined as Rs. 85,97,436/- which includes GST @12% on the base profiteered amount of Rs. 76,76,282/- as per the revised Annexure-14 of the Report dated for the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2018 in terms of Rule 133 (1) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under the above sub-Section read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him. Accordingly, the notice dated 09.04.2019 vide which it was proposed to impose penalty on the Respondent under Section 29 and 122-127 of the above Act read with Rule 21 and 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017 is hereby withdrawn to that extent, 62. Further this Authority as per Rule 136 of the CGST Rules 2017 directs the Commissioners of CGST/SGST Uttar Pradesh to monitor this order under the supervision of the DGAP by ensuring that the amount profiteered by the Respondent as ordered by this Authority is passed on to all the eligible buyers as per there used Annexure-14 of the Report dated 30.05.2010. A report in compliance of this order shall be submitted to this Authority by the concerned Commissioner CGST/CGST within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this order through the DGAP. 63. It is also established from the facts of the present case that the Respondent is constructing two projects viz. "Gulmohar Green" as a residential project and "Anandam Square" as the commercial project. It is further e....