TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at Plot Bhubaneswar, Mouja Aiginia, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar, Khurda District. Applicant No. 1 has alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to him by way of commensurate reduction in prices and charged GST @12% on the demand raised post-GST. Applicant No. 1 had further alleged that he was allotted an under-construction flat on 18.08.2011 and had paid 90% of the consideration under the erstwhile Service Tax regime and the balance consideration was due to be paid under the GST regime. Further, the Applicant submitted the following documents along with his application in APAF-1:- a. Copy of Allotment Letter dated 18.08.2011 along with Brochure of the project. b. Copies of letters dated 19.11.2019, 20.02.2020 & 17.06.2020 written by the Applicant requesting the Respondent to recalculate the basic price considering benefit of ITC in the GST regime. c. Copy of Aadhar Card. d. Copy of Demand Letter dated 13.01.2020. e. Copy of Reply dated 24.12.2019 given by the Respondent wherein it was stated that "the cost of flats was exclusive of taxes and hence the allottees had paid the Service Tax before GST- regime accordingly. In the GST reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to September 2020. xv. List of home buyers & commercial shop buyers in the project "Jeevan Ananda". xvi. The approved cost of the project "Jeevan Ananda". xvii. Pro-rated computation of benefits. e. That in response to the Notice dated 09.11.2020 and subsequent reminders, Respondent replied vide above-said letters/e-mails and the same were summed up as follows: - i. The Respondent had successfully developed two projects in Bengaluru, Karnataka (Jeevan Anand Phase I and Jeevan Anand Phase II). These projects were completed way back in 2007 and 2014, respectively. At present, the Respondent had only one ongoing project, namely "Jeevan Ananda" located at Bhubaneswar, which was commenced in the year 2011. ii. The project was registered under Odisha Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules 2017 with registration no. MP/19/2018/00170. iii. The Respondent had obtained the parcel of land for the development of the project on a long-term lease contract executed with the Government of Odisha on 7.11.2007 for a period of 90 years. As per the terms of the Land Lease contract, the said land could be used by the Respondent for the construction of buildings and structures for c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3rd abatement. vii. The Respondent completed the Project in November- 2019 and received Occupancy Certificate No. 27896/BDA, Bhubaneshwar dated 25.11.2019 from the Bhubaneshwar Development Authority. viii. He was eligible to claim credit of Service Tax paid on input services, but he was not eligible to take any credit of VAT paid on the 'goods' purchased/used in the Project. However, in the present GST regime, there was no restriction on availing ITC of GST paid on goods used in the project, and to that extent, there might be an ITC benefit. Break-up of the goods and services procured in the GST regime was given in Table 'A' below:- Table-'A' Period Value of inward goods GST paid on inward goods ITC availed inward goods Value of inward services GST paid on inward services ITC availed inward services Total ITC availed 2017-18 46,15,000 8,30,700 8,30,700 5,51,57,002 99,28,261 99,28,261 1,07,58,961 2018-19 1,93,660 34,860 34,860 4,64,04,758 83,52,856 83,52,856 83,87,716 2019-20 26,61,769 4,79,119 4,79,119 81,80,207 14,64,084 14,64,084 19,43,203 2020-21 24,022 4,324 4,324 51,48,041 9,26,650 9,26,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Table-'B' below. Table-'B' (Amount in Rs.) S.No. Due Date Payment Stage (Basic) % Basic Amount Other Charges Service Tax GST Total Amount 1 26.07.2011 At the time of Application 50% 18,25,000 - 47,000 - 18,72,000 2 05.03.2012 On completion of foundation and plinth beam 20% 7,30,000 - 18,800 - 7,48,800 3 15.07.2013 On Completion of R.C.C Frame Work 20% 7,30,000 - 22,557 - 7,52,557 4 31.12.2019 On Completion of the project at the time of taking the Possession 10% 3,65,000 - - 43,800 4,08,800 Escalation Cost - - 4,56,000 - 54,720 5,10,720 Covered Car Parking - - 1,50,000 - 18,000 1,68,000 Interest on Covered Car Parking - - 1,00,000 - - 1,00,000 Maintenance Charges - - 84,746 - 15,254 1,00,000 Total 100% 36,50,000 7,90,746 88,357 1,31,774 46,60,877 j. That the Respondent had a single project, "Jeevan Ananda" which was registered under Odisha Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules 2017 with Registration No. MP/19/2018/00170. The Respondent had contended that there was no benefit of ITC as much as services were concerned. The input or input service-wise availa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on but not sold was provisional ITC which might be required to be reversed by the Respondent, if such units remain unsold at the time of issue of the completion certificate, in terms of Section 17(2) & Section 17(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, which read as under: Section 17 (2) "Where the goods or services or both was 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 exempted supplies under the said Acts, the amount of credit shall be restricted to so much of the input tax as was attributable to the said taxable supplies including zero-rated supplies", Section 17 (3) "The value of exempted supply under sub-section (2) shall be such as might be prescribed and shall Include supplies on which the recipient was liable to pay tax on reverse charge basis, transactions in securities, sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule II, sale of building". Therefore, the ITC on the unsold units might not fall within the ambit of this investigation, and the Respondent was required to recalibrate the selling price of such units to be sol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teering had been examined by comparing the applicable tax rate and ITC available in the pre-GST period (April 2016 to June 2017) when Service Tax @ 4.5% was payable with that during the post-GST period (July 2017 to September 2020) when the effective GST rate was 12% (GST @18% along with 1/3rd abatement for land value) on construction service, vide Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017. Accordingly, based on the figures contained in Table 'C above, the comparative figures of the ratio of ITC availed/available to the turnover in the pre-GST and post-GST periods as well as the turnover, the recalibrated base price, and the excess realization (profiteering) during the post-GST period, was tabulated in Table- 'D' below:- Table- 'D' (Amount in Rs.) S.No. Particulars Post- GST 1 Period A 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2020 2 Output GST Rate (%) B 12.00 3 The ratio of CENVAT credit/ ITC to Total Turnover as per table - 'C' above (%) C 11.76% 4 Increase in ITC availed post-GST (%) D= 11.76% less 0.00% 11.76% 5 Analysis of Increase in input tax credit: 6 Base Price raised/collected during July, 2017 to Septembe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t No. allotted to such recipients. Therefore, this additional amount of Rs. 1,84,42,371/- was required to be returned to such eligible recipients. As observed earlier, the Respondent had supplied construction services in the State of Odisha only. t. That the present investigation covered the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2020. Profiteering, if any, for the period post-September 2020, had not been examined as the exact quantum of ITC that would be available to the Respondent in the future cannot be determined at this stage, when the Respondent was continuing in availing ITC in respect to the present project. u. The DGAP has concluded that Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, requires that "any reduction in the 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", had been contravened by the Respondent i.e. "M/s. LIC HFL Care Homes Ltd." in the present case. 3. The above Report was considered by this Authority and a Notice dated 04.02.2021 was issued to the Respondent to explain why the Report dated 28.01.2021 furnished by the DGAP should not be accepted and his liability for profit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the cost of provision of service (or production of goods) due to the introduction of GST. ii. The credit of input tax which was available in the erstwhile regime and was also available in the GST regime cannot (by any stretch of imagination) be regarded as giving rise to a benefit of ITC due to the introduction of GST. "Services" were fully creditable (for construction services) in the erstwhile as well as in the GST regime and therefore, the benefit of ITC cannot arise on account of services. iii. While it might be argued that since the credit of tax paid on services was not availed as credit in the erstwhile regime and therefore embedded in the cost of provision of service provided by the Respondent, however, it must be appreciated that such a situation could not give rise to a benefit due to implementation of GST for the simple reason that such non-availment and availment of credit was the prerogative of the assessee and not dependent upon the implementation of GST. iv. The DGAP report itself acknowledges the fact that it had not examined the input/input service-wise availability / non-availability before and post GST implementation. e. That considering the above, it was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CENVAT/ITC Availed (D)= (A+B) or (C) 2,20,20,794 5 Turnover for Residential Flats & Shops as per Home Buyers List (E) 14,09,91,429 14,09,91,429 6 Total Saleable Area (in SQF) (F) 2,70,048 2,70,048 7 Total Sold Area relevant to Turnover (G) 2,03,419 2,03,419 8 Relevant CENVAT/ITC [(H)=(D)*(G)/(F)] 1,65,87,599 1,39,93,358 Ratio of CENVAT/Input Tax Credit to Turnover [(I)= (H)/(E) 11.76% 9.92% g. That the findings of the DGAP could not be accepted as the same suffered from incorrect assumptions without any verification. In Para 13 of the Investigation Report, the DGAP had recorded his finding that there should be no extra liability on the Respondent on account of the increase of rate in GST as compared to Service Tax because the supplier of input services was now enjoying the benefit of ITC on all purchases made by him resulting in a reduction in prices of the material purchased by him which should have been passed on to the Respondent. While the DGAP Report made the above finding, it failed to record any basis in support of such finding. The DGAP had not made any effort to verify whether the suppliers of Respondent had actually benefited from the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teering" provided for under the CGST Act. k. It was settled legal principle that where there was no machinery for assessment, the law being vague, it would not be open to the authority to arbitrarily assess to tax the subject. Therefore, the findings of the DGAP ought to be set aside and no action might be taken under Section 171 of the CGST Act read with Rule 126 of the CGST Rules till the mechanism or guidelines were framed for determining the benefit accrued to a consumer on account of benefit of ITC. I. The Respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala versus Larsen and Toubro Limited (2016) 1 SCC 170, wherein it was held that where there was no machinery for assessment, the law being vague, it would not be open to the assessing authority to arbitrarily assess to tax the subject. m. That the DGAP, in his report, had stated that the benefit arising out of ITC had been arrived at by the DGAP by comparing the percentage of ITC availed by the Respondent with the total turnover in the pre-GST regime with that of the post-GST regime. The above methodology could not be adopted to co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h & Ors. vs New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 155. q. That any person conducts business for realizing a profit. Profit was nothing but a financial gain, being the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something, or in simpler terms, the surplus over costs. It was submitted that any law which ignores cost or fails to protect profit violates the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. r. That the fundamental right enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India could be reasonably restricted in terms of the prescription provided in Article 19(6) thereunder. Article 19 (6), inter alia, provides for an exception to Article 19 (1) (g) if the said restriction was reasonable in nature. However, in such cases also the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that if the price does not secure a reasonable return on the capital employed, such fixation was liable to be challenged as violating Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Thus, while considering the rate of tax and the amount of ITC for determination of profiteering under section 171 of the CGST Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase in the cost of procurement of materials due to the introduction of GST had not been factored in by the DGAP in computing the profiteering amount. 4. Supplementary Report under Rule 133(2A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was sought from the DGAP on the above submissions of the Respondent. In response, the DGAP vide his Report dated 31.03.2021 has inter-alia furnished the following clarification:- a. The Respondent has misconstrued para-13 of the Report dated 28.01.2021. In this regard, reference was made to provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. In terms of the provisions, the ITC availed by the Respondent needed to be quantified & passed on to the recipients, which had been quantified in the DGAP's report dated 28.01.2021. The contentions raised by the Respondent in these paras were incorrect & misleading, as the Respondent had not considered all non-creditable taxes embedded in the cost of the project such as SBC, Value Added Tax embedded in material purchases (by Input service providers) which was now available as ITC to the input service providers and consequently to the Respondent. Further, the Respondent was considering incremental credit on goods portion onl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the reply. f. The DGAP had done a thorough investigation in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 based on the documents and information submitted by the Respondent and the Applicant No. 1 and accordingly submitted the report dated 28.01.2021 under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017 establishing the profiteering to the tune of Rs. 1,85,70,263/-. g. Further, DGAP in his Investigation Report dated 28.01.2021 considered the period from April 2016 to June 2017 (15 months) in the pre-GST Regime. The whole purpose of taking a period of 15 months was to cover a reasonable period just before the GST so that an appropriate assessment of the percentage of ITC availed by the Respondent could be arrived at. Further, during this period there was no variation in the rate of tax on services and before that, there were several changes in the rate of service tax as well as changes in the conditions for eligibility of availing CENVAT Credit of Service Tax and Excise Duty including the rate of abatement, etc. which would result in a distorted picture of CENVAT. Thus, the aforesaid period was taken to calculate the average ratio of ITC availed with turnover. The ratio of ITC and turnover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of inputs, rates of taxes, amount of ITC availed, total saleable area, area sold and the taxable turnover realized before and after the GST implementation would always be different from those of 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 that of another project. Issuance of Occupancy Certificate/ Completion Certificate would also affect the amount of benefit of ITC as no such benefit would be available once the above certificates were issued. Therefore, no set of parameters could be fixed for determining the methodology to compute the benefit of additional ITC which would be required to be passed on to the buyers of such units. I. Further, the Parliament as well as all the State Legislature had delegated the task of framing the Rules under the CGST Act, 2017 to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 164 of the above Act. Accordingly, the Central Government in terms of Section 171 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 2 (87) of the Act, had prescribed the powers and functions of the DGAP, on the recommendation of the GST Council, which was a Constitutional federal body....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to ensure that both the benefits of tax reduction and ITC which were the sacrifices of precious tax revenue made from the kitty of the Central and the State Governments were passed on to the end consumers who bear the burden of the tax. The intent of this provision was the welfare of the consumers who are voiceless, unorganized and vulnerable. The Authority was charged with the responsibility of ensuring that both the above benefits were passed on to the general public as per the provisions of Section 171 read with Rule 127 and 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Authority had nowhere interfered with the business decisions of the Respondent. Therefore, there was no violation of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution. p. The increase in the cost of inputs and input services might be a factor in the determination of price but this factor was independent of the output GST rate. Further, in the present case, there was a cost escalation clause in the agreement entered by the Respondent with the home buyers and accordingly, the Respondent had also charged such an increase in cost from the buyers as was evident from the Table-'B' in Para 12 of DGAP Report dated 28.01.2021.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation as per contract/brochure issued before allotment of the flat. The recipients were not responsible for the delay of the project from 2013 to 2020. Moreover, there was no such contract provision to charge escalation beyond 2013. The Estimated Cost of the Project, which was submitted as Annexure - A to the submissions dated 15.03.2021, also provided for 5% contingency & 2% Revenue which was Rs. 4,04,54,851/- and such amount was also available to meet any cost increase in addition to interest earned of 90% of the cost of Flat which was taken a advance and not spent for the project. The contention of the Respondent to set off any additional cost was not correct and not acceptable. * The provision of Section 171 was very clear and unambiguous. So the Respondent needed to pass on such benefit received from his suppliers of services and goods to the Allottee of Flat by way of reduction of the amounts of installments. The Respondent had already admitted and as per the Return submitted under GST Laws the ITC benefit instead of being utilized for the reduction of the Basic cost of Flat/cost of balance installment & escalation charges had been utilized for discharging output GST liabi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITC which was not available in the pre-GST regime but was available in the GST. Hence Section 171 only mandate to pass incremental ITC and not gross ITC which a supplier was entitled to avail. Section 171 does not require to specify ITC of "goods" as in the pre-GST regime, many suppliers were not entitled to the credit of tax paid on services and therefore, the provision must be interpreted based on the facts of each case. Therefore, the submission of the DGAP on the benefit of ITC vis-à-vis incremental ITC was legally erroneous. e. That the DGAP wrongly stated that for computing the benefit of ITC, CENVAT/ITC availed during the pre-GST period had to be compared with ITC availed in the GST regime. The above assertion was bereft of any merit as it ignores the following factors:- i. Every developer recovers the cost of land in the initial installments. Thus, initial installments were for the cost of land plus goods and services whereas later installments were mostly for goods and services. Land was not subject to VAT, Service Tax or GST. Thus, the tax paid in the earlier phase would be much lesser than the tax paid in the later phase of the project. ii. In case of an inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITC of Rs. 13,49,003/- on the goods which were not available in the erstwhile VAT regime. In as much as SBC was concerned, the quantum of ITC on such account could be computed as under:- Particulars Amount in Rs. ITC on services availed in GST regime (18%) 2,06,73,381 Value of services (recalibrated) 11,48,52,117 Benefit on account of SBC (0.5% of value of services) 5,74,260 h. That the DGAP had erred in interpreting his submission on power sub-station by stating that the Respondent had declared that ITC availed on goods portion (in GST regime) was Rs. 13,49,003/- whereas ITC amounting to Rs. 40,25,472/- was availed on Power Sub-station work itself. It was submitted that Power Sub-station work was built by the contractor as works contract service and therefore was included in the service and not goods. i. That the Respondent had not charged any escalation cost after 2013. The amount of Rs. 4,38,000/- was the escalation cost up to 2013 and no escalation was charged thereafter. j. Under Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, there was a sub-delegation that was impermissible in law, unless the parent statute provides for the power of sub-delegation. The Respondent has placed re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the "Jeevan Ananda" Project being executed by the Respondent in Bhubaneswar Tehsil, Khurda District, even though he was availing ITC on the purchase of the inputs at the higher rates of GST which had resulted in the benefit of additional ITC to him and was also charging GST from him @12%. This complaint was examined by the Standing Committee and forwarded to the DGAP for investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the above Rules. The DGAP vide his Report dated 28.01.2021 had found that the Respondent had profiteered an amount of Rs. 1,85,70,263/- by not passing on the ITC benefit to his buyers. 10. On examining the various submissions we find that the following issues need to be addressed:- i. Whether there was any violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 in this case? ii. If yes what was the additional benefit that has to be passed on to the recipients? 11. One of the main contentions of the Respondent in the present case is that he was eligible to take CENVAT credit of the Service Tax paid on the input services in the pre-GST regime and he remained eligible to take ITC of the GST paid on the input services, therefore, there was no benefit of ITC as muc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nefit of ITC considering credit "availed", the DGAP should actually determine the benefit of ITC by considering ITC "available" to determine the benefit of ITC and the quantum of profiteering. Concerning the above contention of the Respondent, the Authority finds that the methodology adopted by the DGAP for the calculation of the additional benefit of ITC accrued to the Respondent on the introduction of GST is correct and as per the provisions of Section 171 of the Act. The benefit of additional ITC would depend on the comparison of the ITC/CENVAT which was availed by the Respondent in the pre-GST period with the ITC availed by him in the post-GST period w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Without comparing the pre and post-GST ratio of CENVAT/ITC to turnover, the exact quantum of profiteering amount cannot be determined. Hence, to arrive at the benefit of additional ITC, the comparison of availed ITC is within the scope of Section 171 of the Act. The contention of the Respondent appears to be illogical as he cannot pass on the ITC which is only "available" and not "availed". 13. The Respondent has argued that in the absence of a prescribed method of calculation of profiteering in the Act or the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove provision also mentions "any supply" which connotes each taxable supply made to each recipient thereby making it evident that a supplier cannot claim that he has passed on more benefit to one customer on a particular product therefore he would pass less benefit or no benefit to another customer than what is actually due to that customer, on another product. Each customer is entitled to receive the benefit of tax reduction or ITC on each product or unit or service purchased by him subject to his eligibility. The term "commensurate" mentioned in the above Sub-Section provides the extent of benefit to be passed on by way of reduction in the price which has to be computed in respect of each product or unit or service based on the price and the rate of tax reduction or the additional ITC which has become available to a registered person. The legislature has deliberately not used the word 'equal' or 'equivalent' in this Section and used the word 'Commensurate' as it had no intention that it should be used to denote proportionality and adequacy. The benefit of additional ITC would depend on the comparison of the ITC/CENVAT credit which was available to a builde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e completely different from each other and therefore, the mathematical methodology adopted in the case of one sector cannot be applied to the other sector. Moreover, both the above benefits are being 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 of Section 171 (1) which are abundantly clear, unambiguous, mandatory and legally enforceable. The above provisions also reflect that the true intent behind the above provisions, made by the Central and the State legislatures in their respective GST Acts, is to pass on the above benefits to the common buyers who bear the burden of tax and who are unorganized, voiceless, and vulnerable. It is abundantly clear from the above narration of the facts and the law that no elaborate mathematical calculations are required to be prescribed separately for passing on the benefit of ITC and computation of the profiteered amount. This Authority is under no obligation to provide the same to the Respondent. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid an additional tax of 3% on the same service. This additional burden of tax could not be brought within the ambit of the benefit arising out of the increase in ITC. This 3% ITC was not a benefit as the Respondent had paid this in the GST regime, which otherwise under the erstwhile regime, was not required to be paid. Thus, the Respondent has re-computed the ratio of ITC to Turnover as 9.92% as compared to the ratio computed by the DGAP as 11.76% by reducing the 3% ITC amounting to Rs. 34,45,564/-. In this regard, it would be relevant to mention that the Respondent is again making a wrong claim. In case, rate of GST has been increased to 18%, he is getting full ITC on it and is not paying even a single penny from his pocket. He is further getting 3% more ITC which he cannot mis appropriate. The methodology adopted by the Respondent is not correct as there would not be extra liability on the Respondent on account of the increase in the rate in GST compared to Service Tax, as the suppliers of input services were also now enjoying ITC on all the purchases made by him resulting in a reduction in prices of the materials purchased by him, which should be passed on to the Respondent. He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e cost of the Flat as Escalation Charges which was paid by him in June 2020. Hence, the above contention made by the Respondent being incorrect cannot be accepted. 18. The Respondent has further contended that one of the apparent flaws in this mechanism was that the ratio of ITC was based on the quantum of turnover during the said period. He has further illustrated that if the last installment (which was due in the GST regime) was increased to 50% (from the existing 10%) the ratio of ITC to turnover would severely get affected and the profiteering might also be determined as a negative figure (mathematically). In such a situation, while the DGAP might state that there was no profiteering by the Respondent, the fact would remain that the Respondent had started availing certain credits due to the introduction of GST which were not available in the erstwhile period, and therefore, the benefit of ITC does exist. In this regard, it would be relevant to mention that the above contention of the Respondent is hypothetical and is based on his assumptions as the number and amount of installments is always fixed in the beginning of the project. The mathematical calculation of additional bene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent and therefore, there is no violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. 20. Further, concerning the consideration of increased cost of production and/or cost of supply, we observe that the Respondent is charging Escalation Charges from his home buyers and the same is evident from the Schedule of Payment submitted by the Respondent to the DGAP which is provided in Table-B at Para 12 of the DGAP's Report dated 28.01.2021. Further, Applicant No. 1 vide his submissions 15.05.2021 has also confirmed that the Respondent has charged 12% of the cost of the Flat as Escalation Charges which was paid by him in June 2020. Hence, to appropriate his increased Cost of Production and/or Cost of Supply, the Respondent has charged Escalation Charges from his home buyers. Hence, the above contention made by the Respondent is not correct and cannot be accepted. Therefore, the case cited by the Respondent in his support does not help him. 21. The Respondent has also argued that he had not charged the Escalation Cost from his homebuyers in respect of his projects since 2013. Hence he has passed on the benefit of additional ITC to his homebuyers by not charging the Escalation Charge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of such refund payment and per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the CGST Rules 2017. 24. The Authority finds no reason to differ from the above-detailed computation of profiteering in the DGAP's Report or the methodology adopted and hence, the Authority determines the profiteered amount for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2020, in the instant case, as Rs. 1,85,70,263/-. 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 commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him as has been detailed above. 25. The Respondent is also liable to pay interest as applicable on the entire amount profiteered, i.e. Rs. 1,85,70,263/-. Hence the Respondent is directed to also pass on interest @18% to the customers/ flat buyers/ recipients on the entire amount profiteered, starting from the date from which the above amount was profiteered till the date of passing on by way of refund payment, as per provisions of Rule 133 (3) (b) of the CGST Rules 2017. 26. The details of the amount of benefit of ITC to be passed on by way of refund along with interest @18% to the recipients of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....111 45 JEEBAN DAS & JADUNATH DAS A-1-803 110506 46 RAM SHANKAR NANDA A-1-804 92725 47 CHANDRADHWAJ PANDA &PRATIMA PANDA A-1-805 105765 48 PRANATI TRIPATHY & ARUNAVA TRIPATHI A-1-806 110111 49 MAYADHAR JENA & CHIDANANDA JENA A-1-901 * 50 DEBABRATA DAS & UMESHWAR DASH A-1-902 127892 51 ANASUYA DEVI & SRINIVAS PANIGRAHY A-1-903 * 52 JEEVAN JYOTI RAY & DEVI PRASAD RAY A-1-904 * 53 DR SUCHARITA MOHANTY & BINODINI MOHANTY A-1-905 110111 54 SAILENDRA KUMAR MISHRA & KUSUM MISHRA A-1-906 105765 55 HARISH CHANDRA SAMAL & SMRUTI TIRTHA SAMAL A-2-101 110111 56 SHYAM GHAN PRADHAN & SHREEMATI PRADHAN A-2-102 * 57 SIBA SEKHAR RATH & NIRUPAMA RATH A-2-103 75264 58 SANJAY KESHARI SWAIN A-2-104 88379 59 RANJAN KUMAR MOHAPATRA A-2-105 110111 60 DEBA SHANKAR PATNAIK & MADHU CHHANDA PATNAIK A-2-106 105765 61 BRAMHANANDA PANDA & GEETA BACHASPATI A-2-201 * 62 RUDRA PRAKASH PRADHAN & SULOCHANA PRADHAN A-2-202 110111 63 KRUSHNA MOHAN PATNAIK & PADMINI PATNAIK A-2-203 88379 64 PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA A-2-204 * 65 PRIYA RANJAN BEHERA & GAGAN BIHARI BEHERA A-2-205 105765 66 SUKANTIBALA MOHAPATRA A-2-206 110111 67 TAPAN KUMA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GOPAL SAMAL A-3-105 * 114 PURNA CHANDRA NAYAK & PRASANTA SHEKHAR NAYAK A-3-106 105765 115 DEBADUTTA MOHANTY & ASHOK KUMAR MOHANTY A-3-201 105765 116 DUKHI SHYAM PANDA & SIMANCHAL PANDA A-3-202 110111 117 PRANATI NAYAK & SARAT KUMARI NAYAK A-3-203 88379 118 AMARENDRA KUMAR DAS & BISWANATH DAS A-3-204 92725 119 GEETA RANASINHA A-3-205 105765 120 SARAT KUMAR PANDA & DIPAK KU PANDA A-3-206 110111 121 JUSTICE BASUDEB PANIGRAHI & BINDHYABALA PANIGRAHI A-3-301 * 122 PADMASREE CHATTOPADHAYA A-3-302 105765 123 PRIYANATH PATRA & SHIB NARAYAN PATRA A-3-303 92725 124 TARA CHARAN MOHAPATRA & SUBHASIS MOHAPATRA A-3-304 110506 125 RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA & SANDHYA RANI SUPKAR A-3-305 * 126 ASHIS GOENKA & SHARDA GOENKA A-3-306 * 127 DILIP KUMAR BHUYAN & BIDYADHAR BHUYAN A-3-401 * 128 SUSHIL KU MISHRA & KAILASH CH MISHRA A-3-402 110111 129 TUSHAR RANJAN MOHANTY A-3-403 * 130 ANANTA SARAN PARIDA A-3-404 92725 131 UMAKANTA SAHOO & JATINDRA MOHAN SAHOO A-3-405 105765 132 JAMESWAR MOHANTY & SABITA MOHANTY A-3-406 * 133 NIRUPAMA KHUNTIA & PRADIP KU KHUNTIA A-3-501 100101 134 PHULWA DEVI & DILIP KU SATAPATHY A-3-502 * 13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A-4-305 110111 180 PRADEEP KUMAR MOHANTY A-4-306 * 181 KAILASH CHANDRA DASH & SIDHARTH DASH A-4-401 105765 182 ARATI PATTNAIK & CHANDRA SEKHAR MOHANTY A-4-402 * 183 PRADEEP KUMAR PATRA A-4-403 88379 184 SUBHASIS MOHANTY & ARATI MOHANTY A-4-404 92725 185 DHANESWAR SAHOO & AMLAN ANUPAM A-4-405 127892 186 KANAKLATA RATH & BRAJA MOHAN RATH A-4-406 110111 187 PRANATI DAS A-4-501 * 188 TARA PRASAD RATH A-4-502 105765 189 PRAKASH CHANDRA TRIPATHY & CHANDAN KISHORE TRIPATHY A-4-503 92725 190 NIRANJAN SAHU A-4-504 88379 191 SUBASH CHANDR SAMAL A-4-505 110111 192 DIGAMBAR MALLICK & TAPAS RANJAN MALLICK A-4-506 114063 193 SIBA PRASAD MISHRA & BRAJA SUNDRA MISHRA A-4-601 105765 194 CHARUPAMA MISHRA & SARAT KU MOHAPATRA A-4-602 110111 195 SURENDRA KUMAR PATRA & BANSHIDHAR PATRA A-4-603 110506 196 RAMA KRUSHNA PANI & KANCHAN PANI A-4-604 92725 197 GYANENDRA JENA & ASHIRBAD JENA A-4-605 105765 198 AMIYA KUMAR SAHOO A-4-606 110111 199 SIDHESWAR NAYAK & PRAMILA NAYAK A-4-701 110111 200 SANTI LATA MOHANTY & KUMAR KANTI MOHANTY A-4-702 105765 201 MANASI MOHANTY & ANOJ KUMAR PRADHAN A-4-703 92725 202 SAMIR KUMAR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the date of receiving of such amount from each homebuyer/shop buyer till the date of passing the benefit of ITC by way of refund shall be paid/passed on by the Respondent within a period of 3 months from the date receipt of this Order failing which it shall be recovered as per the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. 28. It is also evident from the above narration of facts that the Respondent has denied the benefit of ITC to his home buyers in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has committed an offence under Section 171 (3A) of above Act. That Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 has been inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019, and the same became operational w.e.f. 01.01.2020. As the period of investigation was 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2020, therefore, the Respondent is liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above Section for the amount profiteered from 01.01.2020 onwards. Accordingly, notice be issued to him. 29. The concerned jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner is directed to ensure compliance of this Order. It may be ensured that the benefit of ITC is passed on to each homebuyer/s....