TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A-3 in the project "Jeevan Ananda", situated 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 henc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... xiii. Copy of Occupancy Certificate no. 27896 dated 25.11.2019. xiv. Copy of RERA Registration Certificate dated 30.08.2018 along with all project progress reports submitted to RERA up 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 28 June 2017. Therefore, the Respondent was charging GST on 2/3rd of the amount charged by it from the home buyers post implementation of GST. The GST rate was 18%, hence, the effective rate of GST charged by the Respondent was 12% after availing of the 1/3rd 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s passed on by the Respondent to the recipients, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. i. That the Respondent, vide e-mail dated 21.12.2020, submitted copies of demand letters, payment receipts, and sale agreement for the sale of flat no. 605 Block No. A-3, Type-B to Applicant No. 1, measuring 1259 square feet, at a base price of Rs. 36,50,000/-. The schedule of payment was furnished in 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 of Schedule II, sale of building". Further, clause (b) of Paragraph 5 of Schedule II 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 had been received after issuance of the completion certificate, where required, by the competent authority or after his first occupation, whichever was earlier". Thus, the ITC on the residential units and commercial shops which were under construction 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 attributa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Total Sold Area relevant to Turnover (G) 517 2,03,419 8 Relevant CENVAT/ITC [(H)= (D)*(G)/(F)] - 1,65,87,599 Ratio of CENVAT/Input Tax Credit to Turnover [(I)= (H)/(E) 0.00% 11.76% n. From the above Table- 'C', it was clear that the ITC as a percentage of the turnover that was available to the Respondent during the pre- GST period (April 2016 to June 2017) was 0% whereas, during the post- GST period (July 2017 to March 2019), the percentage was 11.76%. This clearly confirmed that post-GST, the Respondent had benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 11.76%% [11.76% (-) 0%] of the turnover. o. Accordingly, the profiteering 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/a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent, it was observed that the said service had been supplied by the Respondent in the State of Odisha only. s. That the benefit of additional ITC to the tune of 11.76% of the turnover had accrued to the Respondent post-GST and the same was required to be passed on by him to the respective recipients. On this account, the Respondent had realized an additional amount to the tune of Rs. 1,27,892/- from the Applicant. Further, the investigation reveals that the Respondent was required to pass on the additional benefit of ITC amounting to Rs. 1,84,42,371 /- to 183 other recipients who were not Applicants in the present proceedings. These recipients were identifiable as per the documents provided by the Respondent, giving the names and addresses along with Unit 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 quant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GAP. While explaining the purport and the intent of Section 171 the DGAP had clearly used the words "available" and "not available", the computation (of benefit arising out of ITC) had been made by the DGAP based on ITC actually "availed" in the pre-GST and post-GST regime. It was submitted that the provisions of Section 171 applied only in two situations prescribed therein, one of which was that there might be a benefit of ITC arising out of the introduction of GST. In this connection, it was further submitted that even if the Respondent inadvertently had not availed credit of "services" in the erstwhile regime, the same cannot be considered for determining the benefit of ITC (for Section 171) because of the following reasons: i. Section 171 intends to pass on the benefit of reduction in 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) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The benefit from the increase in ITC for services Total ITC availed ITC covered u/s 171 for goods & services 2017-18 8,30,700 99,28,261 16,54,710 82,73,551 1,07,58,961 91,04,251 2018-19 34,860 83,52,856 13,92,143 69,60,713 83,87,716 69,95,573 2019-20 4,79,119 14,64,084 2,44,014 12,20,070 19,43,203 16,99,189 2020-21 4,324 9,28,180 1,54,697 7,73,483 9,32,504 7,77,807 Total 13,49,003 2,06,73,381 34,45,564 1,72,27,818 2,20,22,384 1,85,76,821 Accordingly, the Respondent has re-computed the alleged profiteering as below: S.No. Particular July 2017 to September 2020 (Post-GST) Recomputed 1 CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on input services as per ST3 returns (A) - 2 ITC of VAT paid on inputs (B) - 3 Input Tax Credit of GST Availed (C) 2,20,20,794 1,85,76,821 4 Total 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 Tot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missions made by the Respondent regarding the cost incurred by the Respondent on setting up and installation of power sub-station in the Project (which had not been considered in the cost of the project to date) and other additional costs should be adjusted before determining the quantum of profiteering. ii. DGAP failed to recognize and consider submissions made by the Respondent regarding the fact that the Respondent had not charged any amount towards the escalation of price since 2013. j. Rule 126 of the CGST Rules provided that the authority might prescribe the methodology and procedure for the determination as to whether the benefit of ITC had been passed on by the assessee to the recipient by way of a commensurate reduction in price. It was submitted that no methodology/procedure for the determination as to whether the reduction and rate of tax had been passed on or whether the increased benefit of ITC had been passed on had been laid down to date. Additionally, there was no definition of "profiteering" 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 no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ii. Compute the credit that would otherwise been available to the Respondent if GST was not implemented; iii. Determine the total amount of ITC available under the GST regime; iv. Compare the resultant figures of (c) and (b) above to determine the benefit of ITC actually that resulted from the implementation of GST. o. Since the methodology adopted by the DGAP was clearly questionable, unexplainable, and not free from doubts, the findings made by the DGAP based on such an investigation should not be adopted and therefore, the allegation of profiteering made based on such findings was liable to be dropped. p. That the Constitution of India under Article 19(1) (g) guaranteed fundamental rights to carry business and trade to the shareholders and promoters of the Respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held time and again that the word "business" occurring in Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution was to protect all activities done for profit and not for pleasure or charity. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of Sodan Singh & Ors. vs New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 155. q. That any person co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances so justify, the same had been treated as a reasonable restriction. However, such restriction on fundamental right had to be by legislative mandate only." t. That the Respondent had incurred certain additional costs (direct cost) in the project which had not been passed on by it to the recipients. Therefore, the adjustment in respect of such cost should be accorded by the Authority while determining the profiteered amount. u. That brochure was an integral part of the contract with home buyers. According to one of the conditions of the brochure, the Respondent was entitled to claim additional consideration by invoking the price escalation formula prescribed in the brochure. The Respondent had also not provided for cost escalation in respect of his projects since 2013. Therefore, non-recovery of price escalation must also be factored in while computing the alleged profiteered amount. v. That the details regarding the estimated cost of setting up of power sub-station were enclosed. Further, the Respondent had also not provided for cost escalation in respect of his projects since 2013. Therefore, any increase in the cost of procurement of materials due ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TC before and post-implementation of GST had not been examined. Further, there should be no extra liability on the Respondent on account of the increase in the rate in GST compared to Services Tax as the supplier of input services was now also enjoying ITC on all the purchases made by him resulting in a reduction in prices of the materials purchased by him which should pass on to the Respondent. d. It was also observed that the Respondent had claimed ITC availed on the goods portion was Rs. 13,49,003/- only, where from the Annex-D enclosed with his aforesaid submission dated 15.03.2021, it could be noted that the ITC amounting to Rs. 40,25,472/- was availed on the Power Sub-station works itself. e. The Respondent re-computed the ratio of CENVAT/Input Tax Credit to turnover in the post-GST period as 9.92% as compared to this ratio computed by the DGAP as 11.76% by reducing the ITC by Rs. 34,45,564/-(on account of the additional tax burden of 3% in GST Regime) and submitted that the profiteered amount must be recomputed considering profiteering ratio of 9.92%. In this regard, the submission of the Respondent cannot be accepted due to the reasons provided in the repl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax and the benefit of ITC were enshrined 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 ITC shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices." j. Therefore, Section 171 itself provides the procedure and methodology for determination of the profiteered amount, and therefore, no guidance was required to be provided. The Respondent had got the benefit of ITC which he was required to pass on. It was also submitted that the facts of each case were different so the quantum of profiteering was determined by taking into account the particular facts of each case. Hence, there cannot be a one-size-fits-all mathematical methodology. It was also submitted that the additional ITC which had accrued to him on account of the implementation of the GST was required to be passed on to the customers, but a straight-jacketed approach was not feasible as the facts of each case vary substantially. k. In one real estate project, the date of start and completion of the project, price of the house/commercial unit, mode of payment of the price, stage of com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....achinery in the form of NM, DGAP, and the field tax authorities of the Central and the State Governments to enforce the anti- profiteering measures. Thus, the case law referred by the Respondent in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs v. Larsen & Toubro (2016) 1 SCC 170 does not hold good. n. The DGAP submitted that there was a direct correlation between the turnover and the ITC as the Respondent was discharging his GST output liability out of the ITC available to him based on the turnover i.e. the cost realized by him from the buyers. Moreover, the benefit was to be passed on the additional ITC available to Respondent proportionate to the payment made by a buyer and hence the above ratios were relevant. Therefore, the above claim of the Respondent cannot be accepted. o. That Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution had been nowhere violated as the DGAP had not acted in any way as price controller or regulator as he doesn't have the mandate to regulate the same. The Respondent was free to exercise his right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. He could also fix his prices and profit margins in respect of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es must pass on the benefit of ITC or reduction in the rate of tax to the recipients by way of reducing the prices thereof paid by the recipients, and the law does not offer a supplier of goods and services and flexibility to suo-moto decide on any other modality to pass on the benefit of ITC or reduction in the rate of tax to the recipients. Therefore, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, the claim made by the Respondent of an increase in the cost of procurement of materials cannot be considered extraneous to the passing on of the benefit. The contention of the Respondent regarding the non-recovery of price escalation from the buyers was also frivolous, misleading, and hence denied. 5. Applicant No. 1 has filed his submissions dated 15.05.2021 against the submissions dated 15.03.2021 made by the Respondent and Supplementary Report dated 31.03.2021 of the DGAP. Applicant No.1 has reiterated the findings of the DGAP given in his Investigation Report. a. That he agreed with the replies submitted by the DGAP except for his replies mentioned below. * The Respondent has charged the cost of escalation @ 12% of the Cost of Flat i.e. Rs. 5,10.720/-(including ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect and he was fully eligible to claim credit of Service Tax paid on input services in the pre-GST regime. In the GST regime also, there was no restriction on availing ITC of GST paid on services used in the project. Therefore, in as much as credit of tax paid on services was concerned, the same remained available both in the pre-GST regime as well as the post-GST regime. Hence, there was no additional benefit of ITC as much as "services" was concerned. c. That in as much as ITC on "goods" was concerned, under the pre-GST regime, same was embedded with non-creditable taxes such as SBC and VAT, whereas under the GST regime tax paid on goods was creditable and therefore, the only additional benefit of ITC accrued to the Respondent was in the form of ITC on goods and same had already been accepted and quantified by the Respondent and therefore not in dispute. Therefore, the submission of the DGAP that Respondent had not considered all non-creditable taxes embedded in the project was factually wrong. d. That the DGAP wrongly stated that the mandate under Section 171 was to pass on the benefit of ITC and not only incremental ITC. It was submitted that if taxes were cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rpetuating loss as the suppliers have suffered a loss on account of their failure to take the eligible credit in past and were again subjected to pejorative anti-profiteering proceedings as the quantum of ITC in the GST regime would be higher. f. That the DGAP wrongly stated that the comparison had to be made based on overall figures of ITC and turnover as tax Returns and ITC registers don't bifurcate ITC on account of goods and services. The Respondent submitted that during the investigation, the Respondent submitted his ITC register containing ITC details at item levels with HS codes. Further GSTR-1 contained HS code-wise inward supply. HS codes for goods and services were different, thus ITC could be easily bifurcated for goods and services based on available records or could be sought from the Respondent. The Respondent had supplied details of procurement of goods and services separately and therefore, the DGAP assertion that no bifurcation was permissible on account of goods and services was not only factually erroneous but also illegal. g. That any benefit of ITC that could arise to the Respondent could only be on account of ITC of GST paid on the purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 31.03.2021. 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 Table-'B' in Para 12 of the DGAP's Report dated 28.01.2021. Therefore, the Respondent could not claim to set off such an increase in his cost with the benefit of ITC which was the sacrifice of tax revenue made from the coffers of the Central and the State Governments and required to be passed on to the end consumers who bear the burden of the tax. 8. Personal hearing was also granted to the Respondent and Applicant No. 1 by way of video conferencing on 13.04.2022. Sh. Dinesh Agarwal and Sh. Pranay Sahay appeared on behalf of the Respondent and they reiterated the written submissions made earlier to this Authority and inter-alia stated that they were ready to pass on the benefit of ITC amounting to Rs. 1.39 Crores to their customers/home buyers. Applicant No. 1 also appeared for the hearing and reiterated his written submissions made earlier before this Authority. 9. This Authority has carefully considered all the submission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were being levied under the State Acts have been subsumed in the GST under the CGST and State GST Act, 2017 on which ITC is now available to the Respondent. Accordingly, the Respondent has become entitled to ITC as Central Excise Duty, Sales Tax, and Entry Tax which was not available to him in the pre-GST regime, which has been termed a benefit of ITC and is required to be passed on as per Section 171 by Respondent. The above provision nowhere stipulates that the above benefit was to be passed on only on the ITC which was availed on account of the purchase of goods. As per the CGST Act, no bifurcation of the ITC was permissible on account of the goods and services purchased nor were separate records of the same required to be maintained. The Respondent is laboring under the wrong impression that he was paying the Service Tax during the pre-GST period and under the GST period from his pocket which is completely frivolous as he is getting 100% ITC during both the periods. Therefore any additional ITC which he is getting in the GST period has to be passed on. Hence, the above claim of the Respondent is not correct and cannot be accepted. 12. The Respondent has further contended tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt has been outlined in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 itself which provides 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." The Authority finds that, it is clear from the plain reading of the above provision that it mentions "reduction in the rate of tax or benefit of ITC" which means that if any reduction in the rate of tax is ordered by the Central and the State Governments or a registered supplier avails benefit of additional ITC post-GST implementation, the same has to be passed on by him to his recipients since both the above benefits are being given by the above Governments out of their scarce and precious tax revenue. It also provides that the above benefits are to be passed on any supply i.e. on each product or unit of construction or service to every buyer and in case they are not passed on, the quantum of denial of these benefits or the profiteered amount has to be computed for which investigation has to be conducted in respect of all such products/units/services by the DGAP. What would be the 'profiteered amount' is cle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, this Authority has been authorized to determine the 'Procedure and Methodology' which has been done by it vide its Notification dated 28.03.2018 under Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017. However, no fixed mathematical formula, in respect of all the Sectors or the products or the services, can be set for passing on the above benefits or for computation of the profiteered amount, 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 installments, stage of completion of the project, rates of taxes pre and post GST implementation, amount of CENVAT credit and ITC available, total saleable area, area sold and the taxable turnover received before and after the GST implementation would always be different from the other project and hence the amount of benefit of additional ITC to be passed on in respect of one project would not be similar to the other project. Therefore, no set procedure or mathematical methodology can be framed for determining the benefit of additional ITC which has to be passed on to the buyers of the units. Moreover, this Authority under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an increase in ITC to the Respondent, which needed to be passed on to the homebuyer was Rs. 13,49,003/- and he is in the process of issuing suitable credit notes to the homebuyers. About the above contention, it would be pertinent to mention that the benefit of additional ITC that has accrued to the Respondent on the introduction of GST would depend on the comparison of the ITC/CENVAT which was availed to 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. As per the details mentioned in Table-C, it is clear that he has not availed ITC/CENVAT during the pre-GST period whereas he has availed Rs. 2,20,20,794/- as ITC during the post-GST period. Moreover, as per Annexure-D enclosed by the Respondent himself with his submissions dated 15.03.2021, it is noticed that the ITC amounting to Rs. 40,25,472/- was availed by the Respondent on the Power Sub Station Works itself. Hence, the above amount has to be passed on by the Respondent. Therefore, contention made by the Respondent is not tenable and can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve resulted 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 in the Pre-GST period was compared with the ratio of ITC in the post-GST period. The period during the GST period might be one month or one year, depending upon the period of investigation. It does not mean that if the period was larger than the availment of ITC would increase or decrease but it only gives a ratio that represents the period for comparison. It was a standard practice to take the pre-GST period from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017 and had been followed in all cases. 17. The Respondent has further contended that he has incurred costs on setting up and installation of Power Sub-Station in the project and thus he has not charged any amount towards the escalation of price since 2013. Concerning the above contention of the Respondent, it is observed that the Schedule of Payment submitted by the Respondent to the DGAP has been mentioned by the DGAP in Table-B at Para 12 of the DGAP's Report dated 28.01.2021. Upon perusal of Table B mentioned above, it is observed that the Respondent has charged Escalat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the escalation in his prices. Neither the DGAP nor this Authority has acted in any way as a price controller or regulator as it doesn't have the mandate to regulate the same. The Respondent is absolutely free to exercise his right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business, as per the provisions of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. He can also fix his prices and profit margins in respect of the supplies made by him. Under Section 171 this Authority has only been mandated to ensure that both the benefits of tax reduction and ITC, which are the sacrifices of precious tax revenue made from the kitty of the Central and the State Governments are passed on to the end consumers who bear the burden of the tax. The intent of this provision is the welfare of consumers who are voiceless, unorganized, and vulnerable. This Authority is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that both the above benefits are passed on to the general public as per the provisions of Section 171 read with Rule 127 and 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Hence, the anti-profiteering related Rules and Section 171 of the Act have the express approval of the Parliament, all the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no reduction in the rate of tax in the post-GST period; hence the only issue to be examined is whether there was any benefit of ITC with the introduction of GST. On this issue, it has been revealed from the DGAP's Report that the ITC as a percentage of the turnover that was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period (April 2016 to June 2017) was 0% and during the post-GST period (July 2017 to September-2020), it was 11.76% for the Project 'Jeevan Ananda'. This confirms that post-GST, the Respondent has benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 11.76% (11.76% - 0%) of his turnover, and the same was required to be passed on to the customers/flat buyers/recipients. The DGAP has calculated the amount of ITC benefit availed by the Respondent which needs to be passed on to all the recipients of supply including the Applicant No. 1 as Rs. 1,85,70,263/-. The details of such calculations are mentioned in Table- D supra. 23. Given the above discussions, the Authority finds that the Respondent has profiteered by an amount of Rs. 1,85,70,263/- during the period of investigation i.e. 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2020. This amount of Rs. 1,85,70,263/- includes the amount relating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1-301 110111 14 PARTHA SARATHI JENA & KRUSHNA CH.JENA A-1-302 * 15 JITENDRA NATH PATRA & RANITA PATRA A-1-303 92725 16 BIJOY KUMAR MOHARANA A-1-304 88379 17 CHITTA RANJAN ASHE A-1-305 110111 18 GOPINATH MISHRA A-1-306 105765 19 HEMANTA KUMAR SAHU A-1-401 127892 20 MINATI PANI A-1-402 110111 21 SOVARANI ACHARYA & SUVRATA ACHARYA A-1-403 88379 22 SEIKH NURUDDIN A-1-404 * 23 RAM NARAYAN ACHARYA & MADHUMITA ACHARYA A-1-405 105765 24 GAYATRI PANDA & MANJUSHREE PANDA A-1-406 * 25 AJAY CHANDRA TRIPATHY & BIJOY CHANDRA TRIPATHY A-1-501 110111 26 JADU BANSH GUPTA & PREM SHANKAR GUPTA A-1-502 * 27 MANAS RANJAN BISWAL & MAGUNI CHARAN BISWAL A-1-503 92725 28 SURJIT DASH & BAIKUNTHA NATH DASH A-1-504 * 29 AKSHYA KUMAR PARHI & SASMITA PARHI A-1-505 110111 30 SURENDRA NAYAK A-1-506 105765 31 SADASIV MISHRA A-1-601 105765 32 DR SUSAMA MOHANTY & PRASANTA KUMAR PRADHAN A-1-602 * 33 JAGADISH CHANDRA PAUL & KISHORE CH.PAUL A-1-603 88379 34 PRATIMA PRADHAN &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 105765 74 BHAGIRATHI BARIK A-2-402 110111 75 ABHAYA SHANKAR MISHRA & HEMA LATA MISHRA A-2-403 88379 76 DR. RANJITA BISWAL & DR. KABINDRA PRASAD SAHOO A-2-404 92725 77 SUJATA PRIYADARSHINI SAHOO & JITENDRA KUMAR SAHOO A-2-405 105765 78 BIMAL KISHORE DAS A-2-406 110111 79 ASHOK KUMAR DAS & ASHALATA DAS A-2-501 110111 80 UMA BEHERA & MINATI SAHU A-2-502 105765 81 S.SUDHAKAR RAO & S.SAILAJA A-2-503 92725 82 LALATENDU JENA & BHAGABAN JENA A-2-504 110506 83 BALMUKUNDA DAS & SNEHA MANJARI MOHANTY A-2-505 110111 84 SUCHETA PANI & HEMANTA KUMARI DEVI A-2-506 105765 85 BIJAYA KUMAR BEHERA & SURESH CHANDRA BEHERA A-2-601 * 86 ASHOK JENA SAMANTA & ANURADHA JENA SAMANTA A-2-602 110111 87 RAM GOPAL JAISWAL & SRICHAND JAISWAL A-2-603 88379 88 PUSA GOEL & SUDHIR KUMAR GOEL A-2-604 92725 89 PURNA CHANDRA DAS & SUBRATA DAS A-2-605 105765 90 NAMITA MISHRA & PRADIP KUMAR MISHRA A-2-606 110111 91 AAKASH SHARMA & BIMAL PRASAD SHARMA A-2-701 * 92 MAMITA DAS & KALPANA DAS A-2-702 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 * 135 USHA KIRAN SAMANTARAY A-3-503 * 136 RAMBHA SAHU & DAMBARUDHAR SAHU A-3-504 * 137 SAROJ KANTA CHOUDHURY & SATISH CH. CHOUDHURY A-3-505 105765 138 GANGADHAR NAYAK A-3-506 105765 139 NRUSINGHA CH BEHERA A-3-601 127892 140 DR ARJUN SUBUDHI & TRINATH SUBUDHI A-3-602 110111 141 RAMESH CHANDRA SAHOO & BASANTI SAHOO A-3-603 88379 142 NAKUL CHANDRA DORA A-3-604 92725 143 NIRANJAN SWAIN & PRAVAMAYEE JENA A-3-605 127892 144 GOBINDA CHANDRA SAHU & SATYA SUNDAR SAHU A-3-606 210212 145 LALIT KUMAR DASH & PRAMILA DASH A-3-701 110111 146 RANJEET KUMAR PANDA & BASANTI MANJARI PANDA A-3-702 118014 147 SNIGDHARANI MISHRA & IPSITA JAYANTI MISHRA A-3-703 92725 148 MANDAKINI MISHRA & LUCY MISHRA A-3-704 88379 149 PRADIP KUMAR PRADHAN A-3-705 110111 150 SASMITA MOHAPATRA & JITENDRA NATH SWAIN A-3-706 201914 151 SAMIR RANJAN NAYAK....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 PANDA & ANJALI PATI A-4-704 88379 203 MANORANJAN BEHERA & NITYANANDA BEHERA A-4-705 110111 204 RAJ KISHORE MISHRA & BIBHUDATTA MISHRA A-4-706 * 205 RAJESWARI JENA & SOUMIT JENA A-4-801 201914 206 SAROJ KUMAR DASH & SHYMALI KHADANGA A-4-802 * 207 CHITRA SWAIN A-4-803 110506 208 MALATI ROUT & BASANTA KUMAR ROUT A-4-804 * 209 DR. SHASHADHAR SAMAL A-4-805 105765 210 RAJA KISHORE SA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll 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/shopbuyer as per the details provided in para 26 supra of this Order along with interest @18% as prescribed. In this regard an adver....