TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1579
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Noida" situated at Plot No. 14, Eco City, Sector-75, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. The Applicant No. 1 had alleged that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flat purchased by him on introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. The Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee examined the said application and observed that the Respondent had not passed on the appropriate benefit of Input Tax Credit to the Applicant No. 1 as the additional Input Tax Credit available to the Respondent should have been apportioned against the instalments towards the price of the flat. The Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee opined that, prima facie, there was contravention of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and forwarded the said application with his recommendation, to the Standing Committee on Anti profiteering for further action, in terms of Rule 128 of the Rules. The said reference was then examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, in its meeting held on 13.12.2018, the minutes of which were received by the DGAP on 07.01.2019, whereby it was decided to forward the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as also given an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidences/information submitted by the Applicant No. 1 during the period 21.01.2019 to 23.01.2019, which the authorized signatory of the Respondent availed of on 23.01.2019.Vide email dated 06.06.2019, the above Applicant was also afforded an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential documents/reply furnished by the Respondent on 10.06.2019 or 11.06.2019, which the Applicant eventually availed of on 18.06.2019. 5. The period covered by the current investigation is from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018. The time limit to complete the investigation by the DGAP was extended up to 06.07.2019 by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority, vide letter dated 10.04.2019, in terms of Rule 129(6) of the Rules. 6. The DGAP further stated that as complete and relevant documents were not submitted by the Respondent even after repeated reminders, Summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 132 of the Rules was issued on 22.05.2019to Sh. Jinender Kumar Jain (Director of the Respondent's company), to appear before the Superintendent of the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering on 03.06.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the time of 20th Floor Slab 5% of BSP + Floor PLC 10 At the time of top Floor Slab 5% of BSP + Electrification 11 At the time of External Plaster 5% of BSP + Power Backup Charges 12 At the time of Offer of Possession 5% of BSP + IFMS + Other Charges Total Rs. 85,35,000 9. The DGAP further stated that para 5 of Schedule-Ill of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Activities or Transactions which shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services) which reads as "Sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule Il, sale of building", along with clause (b) of Paragraph 5 of Schedule Il of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 which 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". Thus, it is apparent that the Input Tax Credit pertaining to the residential units which are under constructi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17.06.2019, provided home-buyer data which were different from the data furnished by them, vide their letter dated 21.06.2019. For several home-buyers against whose name, unit no. and address, demands were raised in the pre-GST era, different set of home-buyers with different addresses, different value of agreement, etc. were mentioned in the data for the post-GST era. Such differences had been separately mentioned in Annex16 to the DGAP Report. The Respondent, despite all the opportunities provided to him, couldn't provide the reconciled figures of demand raised as per the home-buyers list with either the ST-3 returns for the pre-GST era or the GSTR-I and GSTR-3B returns for the post-GST era. The Respondent, vide letter dated 12.04.2019, submitted a copy of completion certificate dated 29.11.2017, issued by the Noida Authority, for the towers B, C, D, E and G but couldn't provide any details regarding the bifurcation of the Input Tax Credit in respect of the units sold and the units that remained unsold at the time of issue of completion certificate. The Respondent also couldn't provide any information regarding reversal of the Input Tax Credit with respect to the unso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rently showed that post-GST, the Respondent had benefited from additional Input Tax Credit to the tune of 2.71% [4.09% (-) 1.38%] of the turnover. 12. The DGAP further observed that the Central Government, on the recommendation of the GST Council, had levied 18% GST on 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. Accordingly, the DGAP has examined the profiteering by comparing the applicable tax and Input Tax Credit available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period (April, 2016 to June, 2017) when Service Tax @ 4.5% was payable with the post-GST period (July, 2017 to December, 2018) when the effective GST rate was 12%. On the basis the figures contained in table-'B' above, the comparative figures of Input Tax Credit availed/available as a percentage of the turnover in the pre-GST and post-GST periods as well as the recalibrated basic price and the apparent excess collection (profiteering) during the post-GST period, were tabulated in table-'C' produced below:- 13. The DGAP further claimed that the additional Input Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from 426 recipients who are not Applicants in the present proceedings. He also submitted that the present investigation covers the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 and Profiteering, if any, for the period post December, 2018, had not been examined as the exact quantum of Input Tax Credit that would be available to the Respondent in future cannot be determined at this stage, when the construction of the project is yet to be completed. 16. The above DGAP report was considered by the Authority in its meeting held on 09.07.2019 and it was decided to hear the Applicants and the Respondent on 05.08.2019. On 05.08.2019 Sh. Sumit Mansingka, Applicant No. 1 was present in person, none appeared for the DGAP and Sh. Sandeep Chilana, Advocate, Devang Bhasin, Advocate, RK Tayal, Advocate n Subodh Kumar Gupta, CA appeared for the Respondent. Further hearings were held on 20.08.2019, 03.09.2019, 16.10.2019 and 07.11.2019. 17. The Applicant No. 1 vide his submissions dated 05.08.2019, 31.08.2019 and 09.12.2019 submitted that he booked a flat in project "The Jewel of Noida" of the Respondent on 27.04.2016 and he also signed a Builder Buyer Agreement on the said date. He remitted entire a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued in this regard was without any basis, in facts and in law. ll. The Respondent submitted that Project 1 and Project 2 were two distinct products and could not be clubbed together for the purposes of the Investigation report. He had launched a residential project named as "Jewel of Noida Phase-I on a plot bearing GH No. 14, Eco City, Sector 75 Noida, Uttar Pradesh consisted of Tower Nos. B, C, D, and E & G" ("Project 1") in 2013. The formal approval of layouts as well as commencement certificate was issued by the Noida Authority on 27.06.2013 and the development of Project 1 began on 01.12.2013. He further submitted that the project was completed in April 2017 itself i.e. much before the introduction of GST which was duly evidenced by completion certificate issued by Noida Authority, which specifically recognized the date of inspection as May 2017, prior to introduction of GST. Much after the completion of Project-I in April 2017, the Respondent launched another new project named Jewel of Noida Phase-Il on GH No. 14, Eco City, Sector 75 Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The new project comprised of only Tower F which and was initiated on the basis of revised lay out drawing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....primarily 3 bedroom flats and was only constructed based on revised drawing which finally got approved on 05.11.2018. V. He further submitted that no procurement or construction work had started for Project 2 before 01.07.2017 and in fact the first procurement for Project 2 was made on 01.07.2017 as evident from first invoice on which he had claimed ITC for Project 2. The Respondent undertakes and certifies that he had not claimed any ITC of VAT or Service Tax for Project 2 and the first ITC was claimed of GST only. .He further submitted that ITC of Project 1 had not been utilized for payment of GST pertaining to Project 2. He also submitted an Original Chartered Accountant Certificate dated 30.08.2019 to certify the same He also submitted that there was no bar in law to use ITC of Project 2 for payment of GST liability of Project 1 and any such cross utilization would not make two different projects as one, requiring clubbing of turnovers of such projects. He also cited the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Lakshmi Technology & Engineering Indus. Ltd. - 2011 (23) S.T.R. 265 (Tri.-Chennai), wherein it was observed as under:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18 & 201819 along with project wise trial balance for the same period h) Original Chartered Accountant Certificate dated 30.08.2019 certifying that ITC of Project 1 has not been utilized for payment of GST pertaining to Project 2 i) Copy of GST Returns for the period November 2018 to January 2019 j) Copy of revised sanction plans, relevant portion of agreement with Modern Construction Company and Insurance policy for Project 2. k) Copy of Original drawing and revised drawings l) Copy of first invoice for Project 2 VIl. He also denied the allegation of the DGAP that the splitting of Project 1 and Project 2 is only an afterthought to escape from clutches of law, he since the very inception of investigation highlighted the fact that the concerned site involves 2 projects and the investigation should be limited to Project 1 for which the complaint is received. This position had been maintained in his replies to the DGAP vide letters dated 19.02.2019 and 12.04.2019. He submitted that the GST laws do not mandate separate registration of each real estate project and therefore the ITC and turnover details were reflected coll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Project 1). He further submitted that he had duly passed the benefits on account of ITC of GST by way of price reduction by issuing credit notes to the 9 customers who had paid advances prior to 01.07.2017. Further, the customers who were sold the flats after 01.07.2017, the Respondent was extending appropriate discounts to give effect to GST benefits which is evident from account confirmations evidencing passing of such discounts/GST benefits to the customers of Project 2. X. He further submitted that the very purpose of the anti-profiteering provisions under the GST laws that any benefit of ITC available to the Respondent with respect to construction of Tower F (Project 2) can only be passed on to the customers of Tower F (Project 2) and any direction to pass on such benefit to customers of Tower B, C, D, E & G (Project 1) by clubbing turnovers of Project 1 and 2 would not only vitiate the aforesaid basic principles of anti-profiteering but would also lead to unjust enrichment of the customers of Project 1 at the cost of customers of Project 2. Xl. He further also cited the Authority order in the Case No. 45/2019 in Shri Arjun Kumar Parwani v. Signature Builders....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of VAT and further discharging output VAT liability with the State Government Exchequer. Therefore, the allegation and findings of DGAP that the Respondent was not eligible for ITC of VAT needs to be reconsidered. The DGAP in its counter reply has raised an altogether new ground to allege that VAT ITC is not available to Respondent on the ground that there is no relation between VAT paid on notional value and the VAT collected from home buyer. However, the VAT turnover had been calculated as per the methodology prescribed under the UP VAT Act, 2008 can in no circumstances match the total turnover which included the consideration services such as labor, consumables, etc. as well as land and which were required to be excluded in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Larsen & Tubro Ltd & Anr Vs State of Karnataka & Anr, Civil Appeal No 8672 of 2013. He also submitted that he only started recovering VAT from his customers (in terms of its agreement) after the issue was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favor of the VAT Authority and the total VAT payable by him was proportionately divided by the number of flats to arrive at the VAT payabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e inception of the project. He also submitted that computation of profiteering in real estate sector cannot be done in a piecemeal manner on financial year basis and would necessarily need to be done on the basis of all procurements of input and input services across several financial years in pre and post GST regime. He further submitted that the reliance of the DGAP on Rule 129(6) of the Central Goods and Services tax Rules, 2017 ("CGST Rules") for undertaking the investigation for split period was without any merits, that the Rule 129(6) of the CGST Rules only provided for the time period within which the DGAP should complete the investigation and did not in any manner guided that the period of investigation has to be truncated to one or few financial years prior to introduction of GST. Taking only a part of procurements made in one financial year would lead to distorted ITC ratios and the said ratio cannot be considered as average ITC ratio over turnover. XX. He further submitted that even if the profiteering is determined on the basis of comparison of ITC to turnover ratios of pre-GST and post GST period, such comparison should be made for ITC availed during the total....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....io was considered for the complete project since the inception of project i.e. from 2013-14 to 2017-18 (upto 30.06.2017), the same would be 4.36 % as against ITC to turnover ratio 4.09% in GST regime, which clearly established that he had not made any profiteering on account of GST. He also submitted his own caluclations for the same which is tabulated as below:- XXIII. He has further submitted that the DGAP had travelled beyond the scope of investigation proceedings by including Project 2 of the Respondent and therefore the investigation proceedings are bad in law as the complaint was made against the flat booked under Project 1 and Project 2 was a different product. He also cited the stay order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India and OrsWP (C) 7743/2019, wherein DGAP had suo motu assumed jurisdiction with regard to all products of the Company instead of the complained product. XXIV. He also submitted that in the absence of prescribed method of calculation of profiteering in the Act or the Rules or the procedure, the proceedings were arbitrary and liable to be dropped. In this regard, he re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices. The comparison of tax rates of certain illustrative items under the erstwhile and post GST regime are reproduced below in tabular form for the illustrative purposes:- S.No Description of Inputs/lnput Services Tax Rate under erstwhile Regime Post GST Tax Rate 1 Architect 15% 18% 2 Brokerage 15% 18% 3 Steel 5.25% 18% 4 Cement 13.5% 28% It is evident from the above table that there might be various factors which may lead to increase of ITC is post GST numbers in absolute numbers such as paying GST on higher rates but the same does not reflect any additional ITC credit available and therefore mere comparison of ITC to turnover of pre and post GST period will lead to distorted results. c) DGAP had failed to appreciate that while the Respondent may have been able to take ITC of the said additional GST paid on account of increase in tax rate, such additional ITC did not in any manner represent additional benefit available to the Respondent and therefore such increased ITC (incurred on account of increase in rate of tax) ought to have been reduced while comparing ITC to turnover ratio in pre and post ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iolation of Section 171 .Accordingly, the Respondent submitted that the ratio of the aforesaid ruling is applicable in the present case since base price of the construction material in the GST regime had gone up and the Respondent had not increased the prices to be charged from the customers. g) DGAP had failed to appreciate that in a real estate project, the credit availed in a particular period was not at all co-related to the turnover achieved during the same period. Unlike any other manufacturing business, the project life-cycle of a real estate Project spreads over a period of 3-4 years during which the developer continues to construct the building and consequently, avails the credit of the taxes paid in respect of the cost incurred towards the construction. He submitted that generally the developer is not able to sell all the units at the start of the project and therefore the sales happen anytime during the construction of the project or even after the completion of the project and accordingly, the turnover is reflected in the periodic returns. In such a scenario, he submitted that the methodology adopted by the DGAP to arrive at the profiteering ratio would be dist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore computation of profiteering in such sector could not be done in a piecemeal manner on financial year basis and would necessarily need to be done on a complete project basis that too after duly considering other peripheral issues such as escalations, labour costs,etc. j) DGAP also failed to ensure that the flats sold by the Respondent post the introduction of GST and the commensurate credits were not included in the calculations as such inclusion would lead to distortions since the price of such flats were negotiated between the builder and the customers keeping in mind current market conditions including benefits available to builder. The DGAP failed to appreciate that the price so negotiated between the Respondent and the customers for flats sold after introduction of GST are market driven and factors in various discounts/rebates negotiated between the builder and customers taking into consideration all benefits available to the builder. Therefore, any additional benefit accruing to the Respondent stands duly passed on to the customers. k) DGAP had failed to appreciate that any change in applicable rate of tax on the supply of goods and services could not be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....XXVI. He has also submitted that he had received a small amount of advance of Rs.13,826,199 towards booking of 9 Flats proposed to be launched in Project 2 for which appropriate price reduction by way of credit note has duly been passed on to the respective customers. He also submitted that all other flats in Project 2 post introduction of GST were sold after appropriate discounts/price correction to give effect to GST benefits. He further submitted that while in the pre-GST regime the customers were negotiating base price of flat with VAT and Service Tax payable extra. However, after introduction of GST, on account of sufficient advertisement by Government as well as competition in market, the customers negotiated all-inclusive prices including GST. The DGAP failed to appreciate that the price so negotiated between the Respondent and the customers for flats sold after introduction of GST were market driven and factors in various discounts/rebates negotiated between the builder and customers taking into consideration all benefits available to the builder. Therefore, he strongly claimed that any additional benefit accruing to him stands duly passed on to the customers. XXVI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver for the Project 1 since the beginning of construction in 2013 until 30th June, 2017, exclude the figures and data pertaining to Project 2 which was not within the scope of the investigation; allow the inclusion of VAT Credits for the purposes of calculating the ITC ratio for the period prior to 01.07.2017 and/or without prejudice, direct the Central and State Government to refund any GST amount already deposited by the Respondent on the alleged base profiteered amount directly to the customers. 20. The above submissions of the Respondent were forwarded to the DGAP for filing clarification under Rule 133(2A), the DGAP has filed his supplementary Report dated 17.09.2019 which may be summed up as follow :- I. The DGAP submitted that during the investigation the Respondent did not inform the DGAP that land for the project was sub-leased. The Respondent did not submit any sale Deed with the Homebuyers. Further regarding the contention of the Respondent, that there were actually two projects viz. Jewel of Noida Project and Jewel of Noida Project 1, it didn't appear to be correct and ongoing through the complaint of Applicant dated 17.09.2018 it was revealed that he had refe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ining works related to finishing, etc. Further, the Respondent did not submit any documents to corroborate that Input Tax Credit being availed in post-GST was not linked to these towers. The DGAP report dated 01.07.2019 was based on the facts as submitted by the Respondent during the investigation. Ill. The DGAP submitted that as registration under RERA were compulsory under RERA Act, the Respondent, in compliance to UP RERA Rules, obtained two different registrations on 29.07.2017 (copy enclosed) for the project under investigation. The date of issue of Registration Certificate was not linked in any way with availment of CENVAT or Input Tax Credit, or for the purpose of investigation. Details of all the towers as issued by NOIDA Authority were not made available to the DGAP during course of investigation. No evidence had been produced to justify that CENVAT of one tower was not used in other towers or projects. Further the Respondent had claimed to submit details of Output GST & ITC of GST for project-I which show that they have availed ITC in post-GST period which is in contradiction of his claim of completion of project in April 2017 ie. pre-GST period. IV. The DGAP furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also found and the observation had been reported duly in Annexure 16 of the DGAP report. The Respondent did not supply the home buyers details in the format given by the DGAP. As home-buyers data was not being submitted, Summons were issued after issuing several reminders. There was discrepancy in the data submitted by the Respondent and he admitted to have revised it subsequently. Neither home-buyers data nor its reconciliation with the ST-3/GST returns nor bifurcation of CENVAT/ITC was submitted. The Respondent had not submitted any specific point which has any bearing on calculation of profiteering. Though Summons dated 22.05.2019 and 18.06.2019 were issued to the Director of the Respondents firm (M/s E-homes Pty. Ltd.), but the designated person choose not to appear. Further, the persons who appeared on his behalf were neither subjected to any Interrogation nor any voluntary statements were recorded. The Respondent's representative only submitted the documents as prepared by him and brought along by him. V. The DGAP had followed the standard method as adopted in other cases of similar nature for construction services. The Respondent was always informed that findings of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 13.02.18, the property is described as "The Jewel of Noida" and not project 1 or Project 2. The strategy of splitting into Project 1 or 2 is only an afterthought by the Respondent to escape from clutches of law. VIl. The DGAP submitted that his report was based on the facts and documents submitted by the Respondent and it was a fact that the Respondent have availed Rs. 6,93,58,310 /- as Input Tax Credit in post-GST period. In the Report dated 01.07.2019, the increase in Input Tax Credit as a percentage of total taxable turnover availed by the Respondent post GST had been quantified. The input or input service wise availability or non-availability of Input Tax Credit prior to and post implementation of GST had not been examined. Further, there should be no extra liability on the Respondent on account of increase in rate of GST compared to Services Tax as the supplier of input services was now also enjoying Input Tax Credit on all the purchases made by him, thus resulting in reduction in effective cost of the materials purchased by them, which should be passed on to the Respondent. Further, as there was no cost escalation clause in the agreements with the buyers, the Respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T period is after adjusting benefit of Input Tax Credit of GST. Xl. He also submitted that the submission regarding cooperation by the Respondent during investigation is Incorrect, as in response to the DGAP Notice dated 16.01.2019 & further letter dated 06.02.2019, 15.02.2019, email dated 18.04.2019, 17.05.2019 Summons dated 22.05.2019 & 18.06.2019, further letter dated 27.05.2019 and 17.06.2019 the Respondent had never submitted complete requisite information/documents, rather tried to divert the proceeding by submitting the incomplete documents in a piecemeal manner and regularly asking for extension of time to submit the remaining documents. Further, as the investigation was required to be completed in a time bound manner in terms of Rule 129(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Therefore, the DGAP had to conclude the investigation with the available documents submitted by the Respondent. XII. He further submitted that his Report dated 01.07.2019 covers all the submissions made by the Respondent during the investigation on or before furnishing the Report (last reply submitted by the Respondent on 21.06.2019 was also duly incorporated in the Report). The D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....collected from the home buyers. Further, assuming the Respondent discharges 12% (average rate of various inputs) VAT on 10% notional value addition, resulting in 1.2% of the VAT turnover as VAT liability. This would be far lower than the 1.2% of the turnover collected from the home buyers as turnover collected from the home buyers included component of services and profit margins also, whereas the Respondent has charged 3% VAT on amount demanded from them and had not adjusted ITC of VAT availed on inputs against such VAT collected from home-buyers. Therefore exclusion of credit of VAT paid on inputs and collected from buyers, by the DGAP in investigation report dated 01.07.2019 is Just and fair. XIV. He also submitted that the Respondent had stated that the substantial portion of procurement made by him post-GST in period July-December 2018 pertains to what he term as Project 2 which was launched in December 2018, however in pre-GST era he had already started receiving advance towards the same, and have lesser procurement for what he have termed as Project-1, which otherwise he claim to be have been already completed pre-GST. The above stand in itself contradicts that these are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein for the period covered under the investigation only. This issue related to analysis of profiteering by taking into account the entire period of construction during pre GST era i.e 2013 to 2017 had already been settled and comparison of CENVAT Credit for the period from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017 has been accepted by the National Anti-profiteering Authority. ll. Regarding the Respondent's submissions that even though he questions the methodology adopted by the DGAP still the comparison should be made for ITC availed during the total period of construction in pre-GST regimes and any comparison with partial or truncated period as in the DGAP working is bound to vitiate the calculations. • The DGAP submitted that the additional benefits that accrued to the Respondent on account of rollout of GST had to be passed on to the recipients in terms of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as and when invoices were raised or payments are received. There is no logic behind considering the ITC availed for whole period prior to Introduction of GST Similarly, for post-GST period, as mentioned in Para 8 and 26 of his investigation Report dated 01.07.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Buildings and Other Miscellaneous Work on the plot is common for all towers. The Respondent also didn't made him available the details of CENVAT for different towers for the period covered in t investigation, reversal of credit for completed towers under Rule 42 for unsold units, if any, or data related to bifurcation of credit for common services across projects and reversal thereof if any, to DGAP. As, regarding the reiteration that the Respondent since the inception of investigation has highlighted that concerned site involves 2 projects and investigation has to be limited to Project 1 only, the DGAP stated that the Respondent repeatedly asserted that Tower B, C, D, E and G were completed and ready for occupation as on the date of inspection of site by the NODA i.e 16.05.2017 point no, 03 of Reply dated 19.02.2019, Annexure 8 of Report, however, evidence available in form of photographs with time-date stamp enclosed with the application date 17.09.2018 forwarded to the DGAP from the office of Finance Minister, also corroborates the fact that work in the tower E of project was still underway and the Respondent was availing Input Tax Credit of input and input services for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Post-GST period, this ratio works out to 4.09% and hence the benefit of Input Tax Credit amounting to 2.71% of the turnover, which works out to Rs. 3,93,85,763/- had accrued to the Respondent in the post-GST period and the same was required to be passed on by the Respondent to the recipients. 23. The DGAP has clarified that at the investigation stage, no evidence was made available to him to conclusively establish that the Respondent was executing two distinct projects during the period of investigation. The DGAP had added that in a number of documents produced before him (i.e. the application filed by the applicant dated 17.09.2018, Demand Letter issued by the Respondent dated 04.10.2017, allotment letter dated 27.04.16 and receipts/invoices dated 25.04.16, 09.05.16, 24. 06.16, 01.07.16, 30.06.16, 25.12.17, 25.12.17, 03.01.18 and 03.01.18 issued by the Respondent to the Applicant No. 1; and the stamp duty paper dated 13.02.18), the property was seen described as "The Jewel of Noida" and not as project I or Project ll. However, the above said contention of the DGAP is immaterial as every document had mentioned Tower and flat no. to which the unit belong and it is not a conclus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Project 2. vii. Copy of revised sanction plans, relevant portion of agreement with Modern Construction Company and Insurance policy for Project 2. viii. Copy of Original drawing and revised drawings. ix. Copy of first invoice for Project 2 x. Copy of Statutory Returns for the period of investigation. xi. He has also cited the orders of the Authority in case of Gaurav Gulati vs. Paramount Propbuilt Pvt. Ltd and Arjun Kumar Parwani vs. Signature Builders Pvt. Ltd in this regard. 26.We find it evident from the documents placed before us that Project 1 and Project 2 are two separate projects in as much as these relate to two distinct RERA registrations, separate approvals issued by the NOIDA Development Authority, distinct sanction plans/ maps and completely distinct construction schedules, project 1 having been launched and initiated in the pre GST period whereas construction of project 2 started only after the receipt of mandatory approval of the relevant authority on 5.11.2018 and the statutory RERA registration in December 2017. In this context, we also find it pertinent that it was only after he had received the revised approval ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... home-buyers data, though the said Applicant had submitted copy of demand letter dated 04.10.2017. He also submitted that the Respondent has furnished different set of home buyers details in different submissions. After going through the submissions of the investigating wing i.e the DGAP, we direct the Respondent to provide to the DGAP all the available data/information/documents and evidences related to the said projects as and when desired by the DGAP. The DGAP is directed to undertake the investigation afresh by treating the two projects separately. ll. The Respondent has also argued that the ITC of VAT has not been incorporated in the computation of profiteering to him even though he fulfills the two conditions as mentioned in the DGAP Report dated 01.07.2019 i.e. a) VAT has been paid on deemed value addition; and b) VAT has not been recovered from the home buyers however, he claimed to fulfils both of these conditions and has also submitted documentary evidence for the same. He has submitted copy of assessment orders passed by the UPVAT Authorities for F.Y 2014-15, 2015-16 and the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner (VAT) certifying that he has not availed composi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of profiteering in the two projects, need to be revisited by the DGAP through a thorough investigation, keeping in view the above directions of the Authority that project 1 and project 2 are two separate projects and hence the ITC/turnover of the two cannot be clubbed for the purpose of calculation of profiteering. Needless to say that the entire computation of profiteering will need to be reworked out afresh accordingly, after due consideration of the details/ records/ information that has been submitted by the Respondent before this Authority. We find that further investigation is required in the present case in line with this order, covering therein all the issues in their entirety. Accordingly, the DGAP is directed to reinvestigate the matter and furnish his report in terms of Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 within 02 months from the receipt of this order. 29. A copy each of this order be supplied to both the Applicants and the Respondent for necessary action. ============= Document 1 S. No. 1 Period 2 Output tax rate (%) 3 45 Table 'C' Particulars Ratio of CENVAT/VAT/GST Input Tax Credit to Total Turnover as per Table - B above (%) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....१११११२ सà¥à¤ªà¤·à¥à¤Ÿà¥€à¤•à¤°à¤£ में माननीय नà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯ à¤à¤µà¤‚ अधिक केहि बाद निरà¥à¤£à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ का सनà¥à¤¦à¤°à¥à¤ किया गया है ये सà¤à¥€ माननीय सरà¥à¤µà¥‹à¤¦à¤° नà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¾à¤²à¤¯ दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ सरà¥à¤µà¤¶à¥à¤°à¥€ लारà¥à¤¸à¤¨ à¤à¤£à¥à¤¡ डॠस व अनà¥à¤¯ के मामले में दिठगठनिरà¥à¤£à¤¯ दिनांक 26-9-2013 से पूरà¥à¤µ मे हैं और माननीय नà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¾à¤²à¤¯à¥€à¤¨....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¥ˆ, जिसके मूलà¥à¤¯ का के अनà¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤° à¤à¤µà¤¨à¥‹à¤‚ में à¤à¥‚मि किस दूरू करके निरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤£ किये गये पà¥à¤°à¥‹à¤¸à¥à¤Ÿ वायर से समà¥à¤¬à¤¨à¥à¤§à¤¿à¤¤ à¤à¤µà¤¨ की संखà¥à¤¯à¤¾ का मूलà¥à¤¯ उसके विसà¥à¤Ÿ पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ªà¥à¤¤ बà¥à¤•à¤¿à¤‚ग! à¤à¤µà¤¨ के मà¥à¤–à¥à¤¯ से अलग होता है। कà¥à¤·à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤ªà¤¨à¥€ से पालेनà¥à¤¦à¥à¤° ने लामत à¤à¤µà¤¤à¤¾ में से जीधà....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ाग वादवितीय वरà¥à¤· 2013-14 के लिठपारित कर निरà¥à¤§à¤¾à¤°à¤£ आदेश दिनांक 01-08-2017 के दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ फरà¥à¤® की वैट की देयता निरà¥à¤§à¤¾à¤°à¤¿à¤¤ किये जाने के उपरांत पड गà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤¹à¤• से वैट की धनराशि (वरà¥à¤· 2013-14 से जून 2017 तक à¤à¤•à¤®à¥à¤¶à¥à¤¤ अनà¥à¤ªà¤¾à¤¤à¤¿à¤• (Praata) Intrr पर अलग से वसूल की जा रही है तथा नियमाव जा रही है, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¤¨à¥‡ वाला घोषणापतà¥à¤°-फारà¥à¤®-डी दाखिल नहीं किया गया है। अतः रू० 79354254 की खरीद पर ट की धनराशि रू0 31802122 सहित पà¥à¤°à¤µà¥‡à¤¶ कर देय टरà¥à¤¨à¤“वर रू० 82528425 का होता है। फारà¥à¤®-डी कर दाखिल करने हेतॠसमय पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤¾à¤¨ किठजाने का कोई विधिक पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤µà¤§à¤¾à¤¨ न होने समय दिठजाने हेतॠदिया à¤....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¥à¤®à¤¿à¤¤ संमरत à¤à¤µà¤¨à¥‹ को पà¥à¤°à¥‹à¤¸à¥à¤ªà¥‡à¤•à¥à¤Ÿà¤¿à¤µ थायसे से à¤à¤µà¤¨ निरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤£ के अनà¥à¤¬à¤¨à¥à¤§ के अनà¥à¤•à¥à¤°à¤® में निरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤£ तथार समसà¥à¤¤ खरीदों को à¤à¤¸à¥‡ à¤à¤µà¤¨à¥‹à¤‚ के निरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤£ में अनंतरित निरà¥à¤§à¤¾à¤°à¤¿à¤¤ किया जाता है। बिनà¥à¤¦à¥-6 के अनà¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤° सà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤¨à¤¾à¤µà¤° वार के टà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¡à¤°à¥à¤¸ से खरीद रू0 79354254 की ख....