TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 674
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respectively in "Emerald Floors Select-A" project of the Respondent. The above Applicants had also alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by way of commensurate reduction in the prices of the above flats. The aforesaid reference was considered by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, in its meeting held on 1 1 04.2019, wherein it was decided to forward the same to the DGAP to conduct detailed investigation in to the complaint according to Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 2. The above Applicants had furnished the following documents along with their application: (a) Copies of communication between the Applicants and the Respondent. (b) Letters of offer of possession and settlement of final dues issued by the Respondent to the Applicants. (c) Copies of passports as proof of identity. (d) Duly filled in APAF forms. 3. On receipt of the recommendation from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, the DGAP had found from the application filed by the Applicants that both of them had booked a flat each in the Respondent's Project "Emerald Floor Select-A", on 27 09.2011 i.e. in the pre-GST era. In terms of the instalmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under investigation. Based on the above, his estimated computation of additional benefit of ITC that had accrued to him in the aforesaid project was to the tune of 5.68%. The Respondent had also stated that he had passed on the above computed benefit to the both the Applicants through credit notes. He has further stated that this benefit had either been passed on or would be passed on to the customers of the project "Emerald Hills" by way of commensurate reduction in prices due to expected additional ITC accrued to him under the GST regime. c) That the comparison of ratio of ITC to turnover for the pre-GST and the CST period would never yield the correct quantum o profiteering, if any since, the comparison was not appropriate for the reason that under the real estate there was no correlation of turnover with the cost of construction d) The Respondent vide his submission dated 30.09.2019 had submitted that the amount of profiteering as per the methodology of comparison of ratios of credit to turnover for the pre GST and the post GST period was less than the benefit already passed on to both the Applicants. e) The Respondent vide his submission dated 30.09.2019 had also submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, including a complex or building intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly, except where the entire consideration has been received after issuance of completion certificate, where required, by the competent authority or after its first occupation, whichever is earlier". In the light of these provisions, the DGAP has contended that the ITC pertaining to the units which were under construction but were not sold was provisional ITC that would be required to be reversed by the Respondent, if such units would remain unsold at the time of issue of Completion Certificate (CC), in terms of Section 17 (2) & Section 17 (3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 which read as under:- "17 (2) Where the goods or services or both are used by the registered person partly for effecting taxable supplies including zero-rated supplies under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and partly for effecting exempt supplies under the said Acts, the amount of credit shall be restricted to so much of the input tax as is attributable to the said taxable supplies including zero-rated supplies. 17 (3) The value of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tional apportionment of such ITC for plots was not admissible and the total CENVAT/ITC credit was on account of the supply of construction service only and had been accounted for the taxable portion only. 13. The DGAP has further submitted that the Respondent had claimed that he would pass on benefit of ITC to the tune of 5 68% to the customers and provide details of the benefit passed on. However, the Respondent had not submitted the details of the benefit passed on to the DGAP. The method of calculation used by the Respondent had also not taken into account the correct value of the ITC which was available for his project. The DGAP has further stated that in the light of the abovementioned two factors, there was no reason to admit the claim of the Respondent that he had already passed on the benefit of ITC to the home-buyers. 14. The DGAP has also stated that the had provided details of the calculations made by him and claimed that these calculations were in line with the methodology followed by the DGAP. However, the Respondent had wrongly claimed the credit of VAT and Rebate of WCT available to him. The DGAP has further stated that the turnover accounted for in the calculation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y upon the developer (Respondent) and his subcontractors. The Respondent was eligible to claim the ITC of VAT (WCT), if it was not paid directly by him, only if, the following conditions were fulfilled:- a. Tax had been paid by his sub-contractor on the sale of goods involved in execution of the works contract. b. The assessment of such tax had become final and c. ITC of such VAT had not been availed by his sub-contractor. The DGAP has alleged that the had not submitted any evidence in this regard to substantiate his claim of ITC of WCT (VAT). Therefore, the Respondent was not eligible to claim this amount as ITC. 18. The DGAP has further informed that post-GST the Respondent could avail the ITC on GST paid on all the inputs and input services including the sub-contracts. The Respondent vide his submission dated 30.09.2019 had submitted reconciliation of turnover and CENVAT/ITC for all his projects, as in the pre-GST era, the Respondent had a centralized registration for Service Tax. In the post GST era, the GSTR Returns reflected turnover and the ITC for the whole State of Haryana and not just the impugned project. Further vide his submissions dated 30.09.2019, the Respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ITC as a percentage of the total turnover that was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period (April, 2016 to June, 2017) was 2.78% and during the post-GST period (July, 2017 to March, 2019), it was 11.51% which clearly confirmed that post-GST, the Respondent has been benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 8.73% [11 51% (-) 2.78%] of the turnover. 21. The DGAP has also argued that the Central Government, on the recommendation of the GST Council, has levied 18% GST on the construction service (after one third abatement towards value of land, effective GST rate was 12% on the gross value), vide Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. The Respondent vide his submissions dated 30.09.2019 has stated that the impugned Project had different categories of units including EWS units and there were total of 1234 units in the said Project and all the units were categorised as other than affordable housing. Accordingly, profiteering has been examined by the DGAP by comparing the applicable tax rate and ITC available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period from April, 2016 to June, 2017 when the Service Tax @ 4.5% and Haryana VAT at the variable r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... profiteered amount in respect of the Applicant No. 1, mentioned at Serial No. 138 of Annexure-14 of the Report and Rs. 2,85,572/- (including GST @ 12% on the base amount of Rs. 2,54,975/-) which is the profiteered amount in respect of the Applicant No. 2, mentioned at Serial No. 114 of Annexure-14 of the Report. It was also intimated by the DGAP that the Respondent has supplied the construction service in the State of Haryana only. 24. The DGAP has also submitted that the above computation of profiteering was with respect to 909 flat buyers, whereas the Respondent has booked 1183 units in the pre-GST period, however, demands were raised only on 1016 buyers who had booked the units and the net total of the demands raised from such units had only been taken into consideration. Similarly, in the post-GST period, demand were raised on 909 buyers who had booked the units, and the net totaI of demands raised from such units had only been taken into consideration. He has further submitted that If the ITC in respect of those units on which no demands had been raised in the concerned period was considered for calculation of profiteering in respect of those units where demands had been rai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... way of commensurate reduction in prices", have been contravened by the Respondent in the present case. 27. The above Report was considered by this Authority in its meeting held on 31.10.2019 and it was decided that the Applicants and the Respondent be asked to appear before this Authority on 19.11.2019. The Respondent was issued notice on 01.11.2019 to explain why the above Report of the DGAP should not be accepted and his liability for violating the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 should not be fixed. During the course of the hearings no one appeared for the Applicants and the Respondent was represented by Sh. Manish Gaur, Advocate, Sh Sanjeev Sharma, DGM-Tax, Sh. Tarun Trehan, CA, Sh. R, Chitkara, Advocate and Ms. Disha, Advocate. The Respondent has filed written submissions dated 17.12.2019, 23.01.2020 and 11.02.2020 in which he has contended:- 28. That the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering has erred in referring the matter to the DGAP for further investigation. As per Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on receipt of an application, the Standing Committee was required to examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application to d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA. 30. That the CGST Act or the Rules did not provide the procedure and mechanism for determination and calculation of profiteering. In the absence of the same, the calculation and methodology used in the Report was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Respondent has also added that as per Rule 126, this Authority has power to determine the methodology and procedure for determination as to whether the reduction in the rate of tax on the supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC has been passed on by the registered person to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices but, as on date, CGST Rules have not prescribed any procedure/ methodology/ formula/ modalities for determination/ calculation of 'profiteering'. The Methodology and Procedures, 2018 issued on 19.07.2018 by this Authority under Rule 126 only provided the procedure pertaining to investigation and hearing. However, no method/formula has been notified/prescribed pertaining to calculation of profiteered amount. 31. That the DGAP has arrived at the figures of alleged profiteering on the basis of the difference between the ratios of ITC t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reduced the demand to the extent of benefit claimed to have been passed on. However, the DGAP has chosen to ignore the details due to which the demand has been inflated in the Report. 34. That even after applying the methodology adopted by the DGAP in his Report, the calculations made by the DGAP of the alleged profiteering were incorrect due to the following reasons:- 1. The VAT credit should have been considered in calculating the total credit pre-GST, 2. The WCT (VAT) rebate should have been considered in calculating the total credit pre-GST, 3. The demand notes raised by the Respondent formed part of total turnover for the period under consideration and they should not have been ignored; 4. The Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on input services, as also ITC credit of GST availed was not factored in the correct quantum of common credit on account of corporate expenses; and 5. The ITC credit of GST availed was not factored in the ITC reversal on account of completion/occupation certificate and ITC attributable towards plots (exempted services). 35. In this regard, the Respondent has also quoted the following cases decided by this Authority, in his support:- * Direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ociation (2010) 11 SCC 1 = 2010 (5) TMI 393 - SUPREME COURT, Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited and oRs. 2018 (13) GSTL 129 (SC) = 2018 (5) TMI 726 - SUPREME COURT, Gujarat urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Essar Power Limited (2016) 9 SCC 103 = 2016 (8) TMI 1495 - SUPREME COURT, L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 = 1997 (3) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT and R K. Jain v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 119 = 1993 (5) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT. The Respondent has also submitted that due to the lack of a Judicial Member in the Authority, exercising of judicial/quasi-judicial powers was against the basic structure of the Constitution of India as it took away the independence of judiciary and was against the rule law. 39. The Respondents has further submitted a list of 24 (Twenty Four) other projects in which he has claimed that he had himself passed on the ITC benefit to the flat buyers. The list of the Projects is as under:- Sr.No. Project Name ITC Availment (Service Tax) during Period Apr- 16 to June -17 ITC Availment (GST) during Period July -17 to Mar-19 VAT Credit during period Apr-16 to June -17 1 Colonnade 68,98,254 9,15,96,013 - 2 Commerce Park 13,24,630 54,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem for the execution of a works contract in the State involving transfer of property in goods, whether as goods or in some other form or for sale of goods in the State, as the case may be, shall, at the time of making payment, whether by cash, adjustment, credit to the account, recovery of dues or in any other manner, deduct tax in advance therefrom which shall be calculated by multiplying the amount paid in any manner with such rate not exceeding ten per cent, as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify and different rates may be specified for different works contracts or class or classes of dealers, and that such person shall keep record, of the payments made and, of the tax deducted in advance therefrom, for a period of five years from the close of the year when the payments were made and shall produce such record before the prescribed authority when so required for carrying out the purposes of this Act (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply where the amount or the aggregate of the amounts paid or likely to be paid during a year by any person to a dealer does not or is not likely to exceed one lakh rupees or such other amount a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er stated that Section 24 read with Section 42 of the HVAT, 2003 provided for deduction of VAT turnover by the contractor of the payments made by him for execution of work contract to his sub-contractor. The above provisions provided for joint and several (separate) liability to discharge VAT in case of work contracts. The VAT deducted by the contractor was against the VAT liability of the sub-contractor, which was utilized by the sub-contractor to set off his net tax liability (Rule 33 (6) as above). It was analogous to TDS in income tax which was not credit against the tax liability of the person who deducted such tax, rather it was credit of tax against the liability of the person from whose payment such deduction had been made. Further, in terms of Section 2 (w) of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003, the term input tax had been defined and the TDS deducted by the contractor did not fall under the definition. For reference the relevant provision has been reproduced as under:- Section 2. (w) "input tax" means the amount of tax paid to the State in respect of goods sold to a VAT dealer, which such dealer is allowed to take credit of as payment of tax by him, calculated in accordance with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P under Rule 133 (2A) was supplied to the Respondent vide order dated 27.01.2020 for filing rejoinder, if any. The Respondent has filed re-joinder dated 11.02.2020, the relevant paras of which are mentioned below:- S.No. Grounds by Respondent in submissions dated 17.12.2019 Ld. DG's comments Respondent's response on Ld. DG's comments 1. Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on input services, as also ITC credit of GST availed has not factored in the correct quantum of common credit on account of corporate expenses The Report dated 28.10.2019 was signed by the Ld. DG on 25.10.2019. Any submission made on that day or after it has no mention in Ld. DG's office report dated 28.10.2019 and no clarification on its merit could be provided. This office could not have verified the revised calculation of Cenvat for pre and post GST provided on 25.10.2019 and its reconciliation with the figures as in its statutory returns. At the outset, it is submitted that the observation by Ld. DG that any submission made on or after 25.10.2019 has no mention in Ld. DG report dated 28.10.2019 is factually incorrect. It is submitted that vide submissions dated 25.10.2019, the Respondent submits that o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g on the benefit of ITC to them on the Flat No. EFP-A-T-GF-86 and EFS-A-TFF-86 respectively, which they had purchased in the Emerald Floors Select-A" Project being executed by the Respondent in Sector-65, Gurugram, in spite of the fact that he was availing ITC on the purchase of the inputs at the higher rates of GST which had resulted in benefit of additional ITC to him and was also charging GST from them @12%. This complaint was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering in its meetings held on 11.04.2019 and was forwarded to the DGAP for investigation who vide his Report dated 28.10.2019 has found that the ITC as a percentage of the total turnover which was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period was 2.78% and during the post-GST period this ratio was 11.51% as per the Table-B mentioned above and therefore, the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the tune of 8.73% (11.51% - 2.78%) of the total turnover which he was required to pass on to the flat buyers of this Project. The DGAP has also found that the Respondent has not reduced the basic prices of his flats by 8.73% due to additional benefit of ITC and by charging GST at the increased r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the reduction in the tax rate have actually resulted in a commensurate reduction in the prices of the goods or services or both supplied by him. Therefore, this Authority has jurisdiction to examine all such cases in which the above benefits are required to be passed on suo moto or to get them investigated through the DGAP and its power to do so is not circumscribed by any restriction to the effect that it cannot examine those cases in respect of which no complaint has been made. It is also apparent from the provisions of Rule 129 (1) that the DGAP shall investigate and collect necessary evidence in all such cases in which rate of tax has been reduced or the benefit of ITC has been granted which is required to be passed on to the buyers and submit his Report to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) and hence he is bound to investigate all those cases where benefit of ITC or tax rate is required to be passed on. 45. It would also be pertinent to mention here that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vide its Office Order No. 05/Ad.IV/2018 dated 12 06.2018 in pursuance of the Government of India (Allocation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent is not correct and hence, it cannot be accepted. 47. In this regard, the Respondent has placed reliance on the case of Dinesh Mohan Bhardwaj and another v. M/s. Vrandavaneshwree Automotive Private Limited, decided by this Authority vide its order dated 27.03.2018 passed in Case No. 1/2018 = 2018 (4) TMI 1377 - THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY. However, in the above case the Applicant had been granted the benefit of ITC and hence there was no ground to investigate the other similar cases as t Respondent had passed on the benefit of ITC, whereas in the present case the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of ITC and hence he has been rightly investigated by the DGAP in respect of all the flat buyers to whom he has denied the benefit. Hence, the above case cannot be relied upon in the facts of the present case. In the case of Rishi Gupta and another v. M/s. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., decided by this Authority on 18.07.2018 vide Case No. 5/2018 = 2018 (7) TMI 1490 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY, the Respondent was only an e-commerce platform and was not supplier of the complained product and hence there was no ground to investigate him in respect of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts are granted by sacrificing tax revenue by the Central and the State Governments and they cannot be appropriated by a registered person. It also signifies that the above benefits are to be passed on each product or unit of construction or service to every buyer and in case they are not passed on, the denial of benefit or the profiteered amount has to be computed for which investigation has to be conducted in respect of all such products/units/services. What would be the 'profiteered amount' has been clearly mentioned in the explanation attached to Section 171 which is quoted as under:- "Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, the expression "profiteered" shall mean the amount determined on account of not passing the benefit of reduction in rate of tax on supply of goods or services or both or the benefit of input tax credit to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services of both." These benefits can also not be passed on at the entity/organisation/branch level as the benefits have to be passed on to each and every buyer on each product/unit/service by treating them equally. The above provision also mentions "any supply" which mean....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aleable area, area sold and the taxable turnover received before and after the GST implementation would always be different from the other project and hence the amount of benefit of additional ITC to be passed on in respect of one project would not be similar to the other project. Therefore, no set procedure/methodology/guidelines can be framed for determining the benefit of additional ITC which has to be passed on to the buyers of the units. Moreover, this Authority under Rule 126 has been empowered to 'determine' Methodology & Procedure and not to 'prescribe' it. Similarly, the facts of the cases relating to the sectors of FMCGs, restaurant service, construction service and cinema service are completely different from each other and therefore, the mathematical methodology employed in the case of one sector cannot be applied in the other sector. Moreover, both the above benefits have been given by the Central as well as the State Governments as a special concession out of their tax revenue in the public interest and hence the suppliers are not required to pay even a single penny from their own pocket and therefore, they are bound to pass on the above benefits as per the provisions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ST period and the ratio of ITC to turnover available/obtained by the Respondent in the post GST period has to be calculated, The value of the turn overs realised by the Respondent during both the above period is relevant as it is relatable to the various stages of construction which is further relatable to the availability of ITC earned by the Respondent on the purchases of the goods and services made by the Respondent during the pre and the post GST periods to achieve a particular stage of construction. Therefore, there is correlation between the ITC and the turnover on the basis of ratios of which the amount of benefit can be computed keeping in view the area purchased by a buyer and the price paid by him in the post-GST period. Since, the benefit is to be passed on the entire project any more or less passing of the benefit periodically by the Respondent can always be adjusted at the time of completion of the project. However, the benefit has to be passed on every month as the Respondent is availing the ITC which has become available to him post-GST every month to discharge his output GST liability while filing his GST Returns. The Respondent cannot force his buyers to wait for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DGAP. The Respondent has also not produced any evidence before this Authority which can establish that the Respondent has passed on the above benefit. Therefore, the above contention of the Respondent cannot be accepted on his mere assertion. 52. The Respondent has also argued that the VAT credit earned by him during the pre-GST period should have been considered in calculating the total credit pre-GST. In this regard perusal of the Report dated 28.10.2019 furnished by the DGAP shows that the Respondent was eligible to claim ITC on the VAT paid by him on the inputs purchases made by him. In his submissions dated 30.09 2019, the Respondent has claimed VAT credit of 55,48,809/- in respect of the above Project for the period from April, 2017 to June, 2017. It is also revealed that the total VAT paid on the purchases made by the Respondent in the State amounted to on all the projects being executed by the Respondent in Haryana and not on the impugned project alone. This amount was different from the amount which was claimed by the Respondent in his VAT Returns. The Respondent has also not supplied details of the breakup of the purchases made in respect of the complained Project to jus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ries which were either negative or were showing very petty figures. The DGAP had sought clarification from the Respondent in this regard in reply to which the Respondent has intimated vide his reply dated 17.09.2019 attached as Annexure-12 that such petty demand notes were issued due to rounding off the adjustments and the amount did not pertain to the demand notes raised on the buyers. The Respondent had also informed that some petty demands were raised on account of services such as delayed payment charges or transfer charges and were not on account of the basic cost of the units. Therefore, the DGAP has excluded those demand notes which were showing negative values or had petty demands upto 5,000/- to get a more accurate figure of turnover. It is also apparent from the record that the additional ITC was available for providing the main service i.e. construction of residential complexes and turnover for other services provided by the Respondent was also available which could not be accounted for in the turnover as it would distort the profiteering calculation. The reasons given by the DGAP for not taking in to account the negative and petty amounts shown in the demand notes are r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 49/2019 decided on 14.10.2019 in respect of Prasanth Nandulamattam and another v. M/s. Bhartiya City Developers Pvt. Ltd. = 2019 (10) TMI 863 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY by this Authority and argued that he should also be granted the benefit of ITC which he has earned on the WCT (VAT) and VAT during the period between April, 2016 to June, 2017. However, as has been mentioned above the Respondent is not entitled to the benefit of ITC of WCT (VAT) and VAT as he has not reflected them in his VAT Returns which he has himself filed during the above period. In the absence of cogent and reliable evidence the above claim made by the Respondent cannot accepted. Hence, the above cases do not help his cause. 58. The Respondent has also contended that the constitution of this Authority is bad in law as the it does not have any Judicial Member and in doing so he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. R. Gandhi President Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1 = 2010 (5) TMI 393 - SUPREME COURT. The facts of this case are not relevant in the present case as in the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was reviewing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MI 821 - SUPREME COURT, the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act 2005 and the Constitution (Forty-Second) Amendment Act, 1976 was challenged on the ground of violating the basic structure of the Constitution. The National Tax Tribunal was vested with the power of adjudicating appeals which included a substantial question of law arising from the orders passed by the appellate authorities under the specific tax enactments. Prior to the 2005 Act, the jurisdiction to adjudicate these appeals lied with the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the facts of the case of Madras Bar Association Supra are also not applicable to the facts of the present case as no substitution of the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Courts has taken place under the CGST Act, 2017. 60. Therefore, the sequitur of the above discussion is that this Authority has not replaced or substituted any function which the Courts were performing hitherto. Though it performs quasi-judicial functions but it cannot be equated with a judicial tribunal. Also, it performs its functions in a fair and reasonable manner in accordance with the Act but does not have the trappings of a Court and therefore, absence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hence, the law settled in the above cases in not being relied upon. 63. The Respondent has also alleged that the DGAP has wrongly included the GST in the profiteered amount. However, as far as the issue of including the GST charged by the Respondent in the profiteered amount is concerned the DGAP has correctly included it in the profiteered amount as the Respondent has not only charged additional prices from his customers on the flats purchased by them which they were legally not bound to pay as they were entitled to the benefit of ITC due to which the prices should have been commensurately reduced but he has also forced them to pay additional GST on the illegally charged prices which they should not have paid. Had he not charged extra GST the customers would have paid less prices and thus got the benefit of ITC. The Central as well as the Government of Haryana have sacrificed their tax revenue in favour of the flat buyers to give them benefit of reduced prices which the Respondent has denied and thus, he has defeated the very aim of passing on the benefit of ITC. Therefore, the illegally charged additional GST has been rightly included in the profiteered amount by the DGAP. 64. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s have been mentioned by the DGAP in Annexure-14 of his Report dated 28.10.2019. These buyers are identifiable as per the documents placed on record and therefore, the Respondent is directed to pass on the amounts of Rs. 19,16,83,441/-, Rs. 4,06,859/- and Rs. 2,85,572/- to the other flat buyers, the Applicant No. 1 and the Applicant No. 2 respectively along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the dates from which the above amounts were collected by him from them till the payment is made, within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order as per the details mentioned in Annexure-14 attached with the Report dated 28.10.2019 66. Accordingly, this Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from the buyers of the flats of the above Project commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him as has been detailed above. Since the present investigation is only up to 31.03.2019 any benefit of ITC which accrues subsequently shall also be passed on to the buyers by the Respondent. The concerned Commissioner CGST/SGST shall ensure that the above benefit is passed on to the eligible flat buyers.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anade 1,00,70,369 - - 20 Mohali Hills 3,53,15,559 - - 21 Gomti Green 99,76,745 - - 22 Golf Course Hyderabad 63,84,410 - - 23 Indore Greens 30,92,662 - - 24 Jaipur Greens 20,45,417 - - Grand Total 54,08,78,499 2,12,29,98,971 2,67,04,225 Keeping in view the self-admission of the Respondent that he is liable to pass on the benefit of additional ITC as per the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act, the above admission of the Respondent is required to be investigated as there are sufficient reasons to believe that the Respondent is required to pass on the benefit of additional ITC to the eligible house buyers. Accordingly, the DGAP is directed to investigate the issue of passing on the benefit of additional ITC in respect of the above twenty four projects and submit his Report in terms of Rule 133 (5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 which reads as under: "(5)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4), where upon receipt of the report of the Director General of Anti-profiteering referred to in sub-rule (6) of rule 129, the Authority has reasons to believe that there has been contravention of the provisions of section 171 in respect of g....