TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 674
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. EFPA-T-GF-86 and Flat No. EFS-A-T-FF-86 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had also provided a summary of ITC available to him and turnover of the project for the period 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 alread....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of services, reads as "Sale of land and subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule-II, sale of building". Further, Clause (b) of para 5 of Schedule-Il of the CGST Act, 2017 reads as "(b) construction 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 eff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent had showed VAT & CENVAT/ITC credit on account of plots also. As per the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, sale of plots amounted to transfer of immovable property and did not come under the purview of GST Hence, the proportional 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of payment to the works contractors to claim WCT credit for the Project in his VAT Returns submitted in his office. Moreover, in terms of Section 42 of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003 and the relevant Rules, liability to pay tax was jointly 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-GS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Total Saleable Area (F) 20,93,260 20,93,260 7 Sold Area relevant to Turnover in Sq Ft. (G) 16,91,490 1544740 8 ITC proportionate to Sold Area (H=(C or D)*G/F) 3,97,96,419 22,64,69,212 9 Ratio of Cenvat/lnput Tax Credit to Turnover(I=H/E*100) 2.78% 11.51% 20. The DGAP has argued from the Table-'A' that 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019, the amount of benefit of ITC not passed on or in other words, the profiteered amount has been quantified by the DGAP as Rs. 19,23,01,682/- which includes GST @ 12%, on the base profited amount of Rs. 17,16,97,930/-. The buyer and Unit No. wise break-up of this amount has been given in Annexure-14 of the DGAP's Report. This amount is inclusive of Rs. 4,06,859/- (including GST @ 12% on the base amount of Rs. 3,63,267/- which is the 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Profiteering, if any, for the period post March, 2019, has not been examined by him, as the exact quantum of ITC that would be available to the Respondent in future could not be determined at this stage, when the construction of the Project was yet to be completed. He has further stated that the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 requiring that "a reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC shall be passed on to the recipient by 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, S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and another v. M/s Pulimoottill Silks 2019 (2) TMI 296 NAA. 4. Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. M/s. Velbon Vitrified Tiles Pvt. Ltd. 2019 2019 (3) TMI 370 NAA. 5. Toyo Engineering India Limited v. CC Mumbai 2006 (201) E.L.T. 513 (SC) = 2006 (8) TMI 184 - SUPREME COURT. 6. Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. CCE 1996 (88) E.L.T. 641 (SC) = 1996 (10) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT. 7. Fx Enterprise Solutions India Pvt- Ltd. and Ors. v. Hyundai Motor India Limited 2017 Comp 586 (CCI) = 2017 (6) TMI 1316 - 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 pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITC to the turnover of the Pre-GST and the Post-GST periods for calculating the benefit of additional ITC which has accrued to the Respondent, which shall never yield the correct quantum of profiteering. The benefit claimed to have been passed on by the Respondent to his customers has been furnished by him as is submitted below:- Actual Benefit passed on till 07.12.2019 Rs. 11,04,19,987/- 33. It was further submitted that the DGAP, being a fact-finding authority, should have verified the details submitted by the Respondent and should have 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 tota....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to Secretary to Government of India and 2. Four Technical Members who are or have been Commissioners of State Tax or Central Tax for at least a year. 38. The Respondent has submitted that the Commissioners of State Tax or Central Tax were holding administrative positions and could not be said to have professional qualification of law along with experience in practicing the same. Thus, the Technical Members would not be able to interpret the law on a regular basis and adjudicate the cases properly. In his regard, the Respondent has quoted the law settled in the cases of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India 2014 (308) ELT 209 (SC) = 2014 (9) TMI 821 - SUPREME COURT Union of India v. R. Gandhi President Madras Bar Association (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 Res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (VAT) rebate should have been considered in calculating total credit pre-GST:- In this regard the DGAP has stated that in terms of Section 42 of Haryana VAT Act, 2003, the liability to pay tax was jointly upon the developer (Respondent) and his sub-contractor. Further, in terms of Section 24 of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003, the Government of Haryana had provided for Special provisions relating to deduction of tax at source in certain cases. The DGAP has observed that deductions claimed on account of payment to work contractors in Respondent's VAT returns submitted to his office were in compliance to Section 42 and 24 of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003 and Rule 33 (2) of the Haryana VAT Rules, 2003. For reference the relevant provisions have been reproduced as below:- Section 24. (1) The State Government may, having regard to the effective recovery of tax, require in respect of contractors or any other class or classes of dealers that any person making payment of any valuable consideration to them 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um equal to the amount of tax which he failed to deduct or pay as aforesaid. Rule 33 (2) Every contractee shall, at the time of making payment, whether by cash, adjustment, credit to the account, recovery of dues or in any other manner, deduct from the payment made to the contractor for execution of a works contract in the State involving transfer of property in goods, whether as goods or in some other form, tax in advance calculated by multiplying the amount paid in any manner with four per cent or such other rate, as notified under sub-section (1) of section 24. Rule 33(6): The payee to whom a certificate of tax deduction and payment referred to in sub-rule (5) has been furnished shall, subject to verification of genuineness and correctness of the certificate, be entitled to deduct the amount shown in it from the amount of tax due from him for the period specified in the certificate and shall pay the balance in the manner laid down in rule 35 and any amount paid in excess shall be refundable on assessment. The DGAP has further stated that Section 24 read with Section 42 of the HVAT, 2003 provided for deduction of VAT turnover by the contractor of the payments....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penses:- In this regard, the DGAP has stated that the Report dated 28.10.2019 was signed by the DGAP on 25.10.2019. Any submission made on that day or after, had no mention in the report and no clarifications on its merit were provided. He could not verify the revised calculation of Cenvat for the pre and the post GST periods provided on 25.10.2019 and its reconciliation with the figures as were given in the statutory returns. d. The ITC credit of GST availed has not factored in the ITC reversal on account of completion/occupation certificate and ITC attributable towards plots (Exempted Services):- In this regard the DGAP has stated that the ITC credit could not be attributed to the plots as the "sale of plots" did not fall under the purview of services during the pre-GST and the post-GST era. The DGAP has further stated that the Respondent had wrongly appropriated Cenvat Credit for plots and the credit reconciliation as made available by the Respondent was used for the profiteering calculation. 41. A copy of the Report dated 23.01.2020, submitted by the DGAP under Rule 133 (2A) was supplied to the Respondent vide order dated 27.01.2020 for filing rejoinder, if any. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eligible customers, showing credit by Respondent of GST benefit to said customers. In case, the GST benefit shown in SOA was settled by cash, the copy of Cheque, along with the bank statement of Respondent, showing debit in its account to that extent. In case, the balance of GST benefit shown in SOA was adjusted as credit in respect of some other services provided by Respondent like maintenance etc, the SOAs of said other services, showing appropriate adjustments. However, the same was not considered by Ld. DG in its letter dated 24.01.2020 and the rebuttals / observations was given only qua the documents submitted during investigation before Ld. DG. In other words, the Ld. DG has not taken cognizance of any documents / submissions made before NAA and it has mechanically made the rebuttals based on its report dated 24.09.2019. 42. We have carefully considered all the submissions filed by the Applicants, the Respondent and the other material placed on record and find that the Applicant No. 1 and Applicant No. 2, vide their complaint dated 25.03.2019 had alleged that the Respondent was not passing on the benefit of ITC to them on the Flat No. EFP-A-T-GF-86 and EFS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2017 which provide as under:- "(1). Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of ITC shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. (2). The Central Government may, on recommendations of the Council, by notification, constitute an Authority, or empower an existing Authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to examine whether ITCs availed by any registered person or the reduction in the tax rate have actually resulted in a commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both supplied by him." 44. It is clear from the perusal of Sub-Section 171 (1) that both the benefits of tax reduction and ITC are required to be passed on by the suppliers to the buyers by commensurate reduction in the prices as they are the concessions which have been granted to them from the public exchequer in the interest of the buyers. Sub-Section 171 (2) provides that the Central Government may on the recommendations of the GST Council constitute an Authority to examine whether the input tax credits availed by any registered person or the reduction in the tax rate have actually resu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce, the DGAP is the investigating arm of this Authority any Report furnished by him to this Authority has to cover all the cases of denial of the above benefits once they have come to his notice keeping in view that this Authority has mandate to examine all such cases, determine the amount of benefit and provide relief to the affected buyers. The DGAP is bound to bring before this Authority all such cases in which both the above benefits have not been passed on irrespective of the fact whether any complaint has been received concerning them or not once they have come to his notice. The Respondent cannot be allowed to deny benefit of ITC to the other house buyers under the above pretext and misappropriate the amount of benefit of ITC which he is not to pay from his pocket. Accordingly, the DGAP has rightly investigated the benefit of ITC to be passed on to the other flat buyers of the Project in addition to the above Applicant and hence, the investigation conducted by him in this regard is legal and is in consonance with the provisions of Section 171 and the Rules framed under Chapter XV of the CGST Rules, 2017 and therefore, the above claim of the Respondent is not correct and hen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by this Authority and hence the above case has no bearing on the facts of the present case and therefore, reliance cannot be placed on this case. 48. The Respondent has also claimed that Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 or Chapter XV of the CGST Rules or the 'Methodology and Procedure' dated 19.07.2018 issued by this Authority under Rule 126 has not prescribed the 'Methodology and Procedure' for passing on the benefit of ITC or computation of the profiteered amount. In this respect it would be pertinent to mention that the 'Procedure and Methodology' for passing on the benefits of reduction in the rate of tax and ITC has been clearly explained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 itself which states that "Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices." It is clear from a cursory perusal of the above Sub-Section that it mentions "reduction in the rate of tax or benefit of ITC" which means that the benefit of tax reduction or ITC has to be passed on by a registered supplier to his buyers since both the above benefits are granted by sacrificing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no fixed mathematical methodology can be prescribed to determine the amount of benefit which a supplier is required to pass on to a buyer. Similarly, computation of the profiteered amount is also a mathematical exercise which can be done by any mathematics or accounts knowing person. However, to further explain the legislative intent behind the above provision, this Authority has been empowered to determine the Procedure and Methodology' which has been determined by it vide its Notification dated 28.03.2018 and not 19.07.2019 under Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017. However, no set formula, which can cover all the sectors or the products or the services, can be fixed which can be made applicable in all the cases of passing on the above benefits or for computation of the profiteered amount, while determining such a "Methodology and Procedure" as the facts of each case are different. In the case of one real estate project, date of start and completion of the project, price of the flat/shop, mode of payment of price or instalments, stage of completion of the project, rates of taxes pre and post GST implementation, amount of CENVAT and ITC availed/available, total saleable area, area s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gy and procedure or guidelines or elaborate mathematical calculations are required to be prescribed separately for passing on the benefit of ITC. The Respondent cannot deny the benefit of ITC to his customers on the above ground as Section 171 provides clear cut methodology and procedure to compute both the benefits. Therefore, the above contention of the Respondent is frivolous and hence the same cannot be accepted. 49. The Respondent has further claimed that the DGAP has arrived at the profiteered amount on the basis of the difference between the ratio of ITC to the turnover under the pre-GST and the post-GST periods which was not correct as there was no correlation between the turnover and the cost of construction. In this connection it would be appropriate to state that what is the quantum of benefit of additional ITC available to the Respondent which he was required to pass on to his buyers, could only be computed after it is compared with the ITC/CENVAT which has available to him in the pre-GST period with the ITC available to him in the post-GST period. Accordingly, the ratio of ITC/CENVAT to turnover available/obtained by the Respondent during the pre-GST period and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es has increased from 15% to 18%. Therefore, he cannot claim that he would appropriate the ITC which has additionally become available to him post-GST on services. Moreover, the additional benefit of ITC is not to be computed not only on services but is also to be computed on the goods purchased by the Respondent which constitute very high percentage of his service. The Respondent has also availed the benefit of ITC by paying less on his purchases as his vendors have also become eligible for benefit of ITC which they have passed on to him. Therefore, the above contention of the Respondent is untenable. 51. The Respondent has further contended that he has already passed on benefit of 5.68% to his flat buyers. He has also submitted the details of the ledger accounts of the flat buyers who have been passed on the benefit of ITC. In this connection perusal of the Report dated 28.10.2019 of the DGAP shows that he had not submitted the details of the passing on the benefit of ITC to the DGAP even though he has claimed to pass on the benefit on 30.09.2019 when the DGAP was still investigating the case. His claim of passing on the benefit has also not been verified by the DGAP. The Resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect of the above Project. Since, the Respondent has not claimed benefit of WCT (VAT) in his VAT Returns he cannot claim the same at this stage. The Respondent has contended that he was to claim the credit as per Section 42 of the Haryana VAT Act 2003 after assessment of his contractors had been finalised. The above claim of the Respondent appears to be an afterthought as he has neither shown the details of WCT (VAT) in his VAT Returns which he was legally obliged to do under the above Act nor he has produced order of the appropriate Assessing Authority passing the assessment order in respect of his works contractors, even after a lapse of a period of almost 4 years as per the requirement of Section 42 of the above Act Accordingly, the above arguments of the Respondent are hollow and hence they cannot be relied upon. 54. The Respondent has also pleaded that the demand notes raised by the Respondent formed part of the total turnover for the period under consideration and they should not have been ignored. In this regard perusal of the record shows that the Respondent vide his e-mail dated 01.10.2019 had submitted the home-buyers data in which he had mentioned several entries whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d it was 10.47% and therefore, the additional benefit of ITC was 5.68% and he has already passed on the benefit of 5.68% to his buyers. In this connection it would be appropriate to mention that the Respondent has included the credit of WTC (VAT) and VAT while computing the ratio of ITC to turnover during the pre-GST period which he has been held not entitled to claim as per the reasons detailed supra. The figures of total turnover, total area sold relevant to turnover and ITC relevant to turnover have also been taken by the Respondent without furnishing evidence and hence, the ratio of ITC to turnover computed by the Respondent for the pre and post-GST periods and the profiteered amount are wrong and hence, the same cannot be relied upon. 57. The Respondent has also cited the law settled in the case of Santosh Kumari and others v. M/s. Aster Infrahome Pvt. Ltd., decided on 19.11.2019 by this Authority vide Case No. 57/2019 = 2019 (11) TMI 1082 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY, Case No. 30/2019 decided on 08.05.2019 by this Authority of Pallavi Gulati and another v. M/s. Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. = 2019 (5) TMI 785 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY and Case N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there could be an Authority which may have only Technical Members while holding that ".....Some highly specialised fact-finding Tribunals may have only Technical Members, but they are rare and are exceptions....". It is also noteworthy here that there are several other authorities like the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI); Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEB'); National Medical Commission (earlier, Medical Council of India); institute of Chartered Accountants of India ('CAI); Central Consumer protection Authority and the Authorities on the Advance Rulings on the Central Excise and the Goods and Services Tax which do not have a Judicial Member. In this connection it is also submitted that the Parliament and all the State Legislatures (28 States and 9 Union Territories), the GST Council which is a constitutional body created under the 101^st Amendment of the Constitution and the Central and the State Governments in their wisdom have not found it necessary to provide for a Judicial Member in this Authority due to its highly specialized and fact finding nature. 59. Similarly, in the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India 2014 (308) ELT 209 (SC) = 2014 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appointed as such. Accordingly, the Chairman and the Technical Members of the Authority are being appointed by the competent authority (Appointments Committee of the Cabinet) of the Union Cabinet keeping the requirements of the above mandate of the GST law in perspective. Moreover, the orders passed by this Authority are further subject to the judicial review and therefore, the Respondent should not have any grievance on this account. Therefore, the above contentions of the Respondent are not tenable. 62. The Respondent has also quoted the judgements passed in the following cases to support his above contention:- (i) Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited and Ors. 2018 (13) GSTL 129 (SC) = 2018 (5) TMI 726 - SUPREME COURT. (ii) Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Essar Power Limited (2016) 9 SCC 103 = 2016 (8) TMI 1495 - SUPREME COURT. (iii) L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 = 1997 (3) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT (iv) R. K Jain v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 119 = 1993 (5) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT. However, it is respectfully submitted that as has been stated in paras supra the law pronounced in the above cases is not releva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tical methodology applied by the DGAP while computing the above ratios and benefit as per the above Tables is correct and the same can be relied upon 65. It is established from the perusal of the above facts that the Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 8.73% of the turnover during the period from July, 2017 to March, 2019 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondent as he has not passed on the above benefit to his customers and thus he has profiteered an amount of Rs. 19,23,01,682/- inclusive of GST @ 12% on the base profiteered amount of Rs. 17,16,97,930/-. Further, the Respondent has realized an additional amount of Rs. 4,06,859/- and Rs. 2,85,572 which includes both the profiteered amount @ 8.73% of the taxable amount (base price) and 12% GST on the said profiteered amount from the Applicant No. 1 and Applicant No. 2 respectively. He has further realized an additional amount of Rs. 19,16,83,441/- which includes both the profiteered amount @ 8.73% of the taxable amount (base price) and 12% GST on the said profiteered amount from the 907 flat buyers other than the Applicant No. 1 and 2. The d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The details of all these projects and respective ITC availed by the Respondents are 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 54,97,524 - 3 Digital Green 2,17,85,403 4,89,49,380 7,43,547 4 Down Town - Capital Towers 86,37,480 10,78,63,762 - 5 Emerald Estates 4,73,98,710 19,74,07,414 1,259 6 Emerald Hills 4,90,73,915 30,68,85,912 59,14,572 7 Emerald Plaza 1,00,81,860 2,95,87,190 23,44,634 8 Gurgoan Greens 4,40,20,052 24,85,94,622 14,392 9 Imperial Gardens 2,82,59,793 16,08,51,014 - 10 Varbella 2,59,04,947 20,48,42,975 30,58,321 11 Palm Drive 4,05,63,982 13,17,13,264 35,35,463 12 Palm Garden 3,10,82,641 15,59,60,254 22,44,286 13 Palm Hills 2,82,06,762 16,70,99,649 83,41,432 14 Palm Spring 96,362 4,00,719 - 15 Palm Spring Plaza 18,04,813 ....