TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of input tax credit (ITC) to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the Flat No. C-402 purchased from the Respondent in the Respondent's project "Sierra-Vizag", situated at Vizag on introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. The DGAP in his Report dated 28.02.2020, inter-alia stated that-- i. The aforesaid application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, in its meeting held on 05.07.2019, the minutes of which were received by the DGAP on 05.08 2019, whereby it was decided to forward the same to the DGAP to conduct a detailed investigation in the matter. Accordingly. investigation was initiated to collect evidence necessary to determine whether the benefit of input tax credit had been passed on by the Respondent to the Applicant No. 1 in respect of construction service supplied by the Respondent. ii. On receipt of the reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, a notice under Rule 129 of the Rules was issued by the DGAP on 14 08.2019, calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of input tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of GSTR-1 Returns for the period July, 2017 to July, 2019 b. Copies of GSTR-3B Returns for the period July, 2017 to July, 2019. c. Copy of Trans-1 filed by the Respondent. d. Electronic Credit Ledger for the period July, 2017 to Jufy,2017, e. Copies of VAT returns (including all annexures) & ST-3 Returns for the period April, 2016 to June, 2017. f. Copies of all demand letters issued and sale agreement made with the Applicant. g. Copy of Balance Sheet for Financial Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. h. Details of VAT, Service Tax, ITC of VAT, Cenvat credit for the period April, 2016 to June,2017 and output GST and ITC of GST for the period July, 2017 to July. 2019. i. Copy of Electronic Credit Ledger for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2019. j. Cenvat/Input Tax Credit Register for the Financial Years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and for the period April, 2019 to July, 2019 reconciled with VAT, ST-3 and GSTR-3B return, k. Details of applicable tax rates, Pre-GST and Post-GST, l. List of home buyers in the project 'Sierra-Vizag". m. Copy of RERA registration certificate and certificate from Architect and Engineer. vii. In the notice dated 14.08 2019, the Respondent wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Commencement of 3rd Floor Slab 10.00% 7. On Commencement of 6th Floor Slab 10.00% 8. On Commencement of 9th Floor Slab 5.00% 9. On Commencement of 12th Floor Slab 5.00% 10. On Commencement of 15th Floor Slab 5.00% 11. On Commencement of Finishing Work 10.00% 12. On Possession + Other Charges + Stamp Duty +Registration charges 5.00% TOTAL 100.00% xi. Another relevant point in this regard was para 5 of Schedule-III 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 read as "Sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule II, sale of building", Further, clause (b) of Paragraph 5 of Schedule II of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read 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 completion certificate, where required, by the competent authority or after its first occupation, whichever was earlier". Thus, the input tax credit pertai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Amount in Rs.) Sr.No Particulars Total (Pre-GST) April, 2016 to June, 2017 Total (Post-GST) July, 2017 to March, 2019 1. CENVAT of Service Tax Paid on Input Services used for flats (A) 2,63,75,303 - 2. Input Tax Credit of VAT Paid on Purchase of Inputs (B) - 3. Total CENVAT/Input Tax Credit Available (C)=(A+B) 2,63.75,303 - 4. Input Tax Credit of GST Availed (D) - 9,88,30,603 5. Turnover for Flats as per Home Buyers List (E) 54.54.89,453 70,51,84,975 6. Total Saleable Area (in SQF) (F) 8,43.855 8,43,855 7. Total Sold Area (in SOF) relevant to turnover (G) 6,21.980 7,07,175 8. Relevant ITC [(H)=(C)*(G)/(F) or (D)*(G)/(F)] 1,94.40,438 8,28,22,916 Ratio of Input Tax Credit Post-GST [(I)=(H)/(E)] 3.56% 11.74% From the above Table-'C', it was clear that the input tax credit as a percentage of the turnover that was available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period (April, 2016 to June, 2017) was 3.56% and during the post-GST period (July, 2017 to March, 2019), it was 11.74% for Project 'Sierra-Vizag. Though the investigation period was July, 2017 to July, 2019, the period upto March, 2019 instead of July, 2019 had be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....base price as well as cum-tax price. Therefore, in terms of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the benefit of such additional input tax credit was required to be passed on to the recipients. xiv. On the basis of the above calculation explained in Table-D on the basis of the aforesaid CENVAT/input tax credit availability pre and post-GST and the details of demand raised by the Respondent from the Applicant No 1 and other home-buyers in respect of the units booked by the Respondent as on 31.03 2019, the benefit of input tax credit that needed to be passed on by the Respondent to the buyers of flats came to Rs. 6,46,06,227/- which included 12% GST on the base amount of Rs. 5,76,84,131/, It was pertinent to mention here that the Respondent had submitted that he had total of 545 units in the whole project and demand was raised from 483 buyers including the Applicant No 1 as on 31 03.2019 The homebuyers of the flats/unit no wise break-up of this amount has been given in Annex-13 of the Report dated 26 06 2020. This amount was inclusive of profiteered amount of Rs 1,62,382/-(including GST) which was the profiteered amount in respect of Applicant No. 1 mentioned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t taking/availing the benefit of ITC. Thus, the Respondent was not eligible to avail the input tax credit w.e.f. 01.04.2019 and Section 171 of CGST Act. 2017 was not attracted. 4. The above Report was Carefully considered by this Authority and it was decided to allow the Respondent to file his consolidated written submissions by 21.07.2020. A notice dated 13,07.2020 was issued to the Respondent to explain why the Report dated 26.06.2020 furnished by the DGAP should not be accepted and his liability for profiteering in violation of the provisions of Section 171 should not be fixed. 5. The Respondent filed his written submissions vide e-mail dated 09.11.2020 in which he has submitted.- A. Section 171 of the CGST Act and Rule 126 of CGST Rules were violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution i. That the present proceedings had been initiated against the Respondent in terms of section 171 of the CGST Act read with Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, which lay down the anti-profiteering mechanism under GST Laws. The relevant provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules read as follows. Anti-profiteering measure. 171. (1) Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner, Central Excise & Customs, Kerala vs. Larsen & Toubro Limited 2016 (1) SCC 170 wherein it was held that in the absence of machinery provisions for computation of taxable value in case of composite works contract. levy of Service Tax would become non-existent. iv That reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty 1981 (2) SCC 460 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: 10..... Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them can be applied for determining the chargeable profits and gains. All transactions encompassed by s. 45 must fall under the governance of its computation provisions. A transaction to which those provisions cannot be applied must be regarded as never intended by s. 45 to be the subject of the charge. This inference flows from the general arrangement of the provisions in the I.T. Act, where under each head of income the charging provision is accompanied by a set of provisions for computing the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncurred for passing on the benefit should be taken into account since it had a bearing on the price of the product: c) the methodology of passing on the benefit in different scenarios; d) the removal of difficulties in cases where passing of benefit in absolute terms was impossible to perform. vii. That in the absence of the above, the action taken by the Standing Committee on anti-profiteering and the DGAP was arbitrary and ought to be quashed. It was submitted that businesses operate in a dynamic and volatile environment and the DGAP had proceeded on the basis that apart from the benefit of increased input tax credit, other factors affecting price in the same period remained constant. viii. That in the absence of a determining mechanism, passing of benefit of input tax credit, if any, at the time of transfer of possession after considering regular changes in tax rate on materials/ services relating to real estate sector, could not have been rejected by the DGAP. In fact, the DGAP had not given any reason whatsoever for rejecting this contention of the Respondent and had simply proceeded to compute the profiteering based on a self-devised methodology, which did not find me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s completion, could only be based on assumptions and surmises. It was settled law that demand raised on assumptions and surmises could not be sustained and was required to be dropped. iv. That on account of change in the GST rate of various products consumed in the process of construction, input tax credit would also be reduced and hence accurate computation of benefit would be possible only when the projects were completed Moreover, in the absence of any guidelines on the methodology for computation of profit, under the GST law, it was difficult to compute and pass on the benefit during the construction phase. v. That real-estate projects were market-driven and pricing was dependent upon various parameters. Further, the consideration paid by a buyer was not just for the construction of a particular unit/flat but also for various other amenities that come with the flat. Hence, computation of input tax credit benefit, before completion of project would not reflect the true picture. vi. That input tax credit facility itself stood withdrawn in certain cases. With effect from 01 04 2019. The Respondent had also opted for the new scheme issued vide Notification No. 3/2019-CT (Rate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in cost of inputs due to higher prices etc. The increase in input tax credit due to such factors could not be considered as -benefit of input tax credit" for the purpose of Section 171. In this regard. it was relevant to note that input services in the pre-GST regime were taxable at the rate of 15% but under the post-GST regime, most input services were taxable at 18%. This itself would lead to an automatic increase of 3% in ITC in the post-GST regime even though it could not be called a benefit. The computation done by DGAP was grossly incorrect for this reason alone. v. That increase in cost of raw materials such as ready-mix concrete, steel, granite and marble etc. in post-GST period would also result in an increase in the input tax credit claimed by the Respondent. This was evident from a simple comparison between rate of inputs prior to and after introduction of GST. Sample copy of invoices reflecting increase in cost of raw-materials/ inputs was enclosed. vi. that the DGAP had treated it was a mere arithmetical calculation and had simply compared the ratio of input tax credit to turnover, in complete disregard of various other factors which affect the credit availabilit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain. Similar ratio was laid down under Sales tax Laws. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kodar vs. State of Kerala 1974 (4) SCC 422 wherein it was held as follows. 2. The legal incidence of a tax on sale of goods under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, falls squarely on the dealer. It may be that he can add the tax to the price of the goods sold and thus pass it on to the purchaser. But it is not necessary that the dealer should be enabled to pass on the incidence of the tax on sale to the purchaser in order that it might be a tax on sales of goods. ii. That the DGAP vide Report dated 26.06.2020 sought to make it imperative and mandatory that exact calculation of the reduction in rate of tax was required to be passed-on to the consumer. This finding and interpretation by the DGAP to the Anti-Profiteering provision was unconstitutional and against the basic tenet of taxation itself iii. That if the exercise was only a mathematical calculation then the legislature was required to state as such. There was also no requirement for the legislature to prescribe Rule 126 of the CGST Rules. It was s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n or within such extended period not exceeding a further period of one month for reasons to be recorded in writing as may be allowed by the Authority in such form and manner as may be specified by it, from an interested party or from a Commissioner or any other person, examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application to determine whether there is prima-facie evidence to support the claim of the applicant that the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit has not been passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. (2) All applications from interested parties on issues of local nature or those forwarded by the Standing Committee shall first be examined by the State level Screening Committee and the Screening Committee shall, within two months from the date of receipt of a written application, or within such extended period not exceeding a further period of one month for reasons to be recorded in writing as may be allowed by the Authority, upon being satisfied that the supplier has contravened the provisions of section 171, forward the application with its recomme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Anti-profiteering shall complete the investigation within a period of six months of the receipt of the reference from the Standing Committee or within such extended period not exceeding a further period of three months for reasons to be recorded in writing as may be allowed by the Authority and, upon completion of the investigation, furnish to the Authority, a report of its findings along with the relevant records. Hence, the initiation and conduct of proceedings was completely based on examination of the application/complaint filed by the Applicant No. 1. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Paraffins Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI 2012 (282) ELT 33 wherein it was held that if the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls meaning thereby that if the initial action was not in consonance with law, the subsequent proceedings would not validate it. Given this, no proceedings could lie when the basis on which they had been launched did not exist iii. That section 171 of the CGST Act is qua a recipient of goods/ services (the Complainant in the present case) When the recipient himself has withdrawn h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cations under Rule 133 (2A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 The DGAP filed his clarifications dated 01.12.2020 vide which the DGAP has clarified:- A. Section 171 of the CGST Act and Rule 126 of CGST Rules were violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution. That Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 nowhere Infringes upon the fundamental right to carry business. The mandate of Section 171 was limited to the extent of protecting the interest of consumers by ensuring that both the benefits of tax reduction and ITC which were sacrificed by the Central and the State Governments from precious tax revenue, need to be passed on to the end consumers who bear the burden of tax. Everybody was 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 of the Constitution. He could also fix his prices and profit margins in respect of the supplies made by him. The intent of the Section 171 was the welfare of the consumers who were voiceless, unorganized and vulnerable. It was also submitted that there was no violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution as alleged by the Respondent as to remove any ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....odology and Procedure' had been enshrined under Section 171 (1) Itself The Authority had notified the same vide its Notification dated 28.03.2018 under Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The DGAP did not have its own methodology and functions according to the applicable methodology. Methodology adopted in the Report was in accordance with the supplies of real-estate services and this Authority had accepted the same in similar cases previously, E. Concept of CST being an Indirect Tax was an economic concept. A supplier could not be mandated/ dictated through a taxing Statute to reduce price to the same extent as benefit of input tax credit. That in Section 171, it was clearly mentioned that any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit should be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Therefore. whole exercise of investigation was undertaken in compliance to the above Act. The case laws quoted by the Respondent did not pertain to Anti-profiteering and clearly not applicable in the present matter. F. The investigation was void-ab-initio and consequently the present proceedings were incorrect ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;s assurance that it would be settled at the time of possession was not fair and tenable nor reliable. The Input tax regime had also changed now. The period of settlement belongs to 2017-18. The Respondent was buying time to avoid the same E. That on the other hand from the orders of the DGAP, the Respondent's defense seemed to be submitting the calculation in a way to avoid tax credits and assuring him to buy time to settle the matter in his favor. F. That the following points of the DGAP might be noted- a. The Authority had been empowered to determine/expand the procedure and methodology in detail as per Rule 126 of CGST law with view to uphold the Legislative intent. b. The Respondent's claim that accurate benefit could be arrived after completion of the project was not sustainable since the period of dispute was old c. Interests of the consumers should be protected by ensuring that both the benefits of tax reduction and ITC which were sacrificed by Government need to be passed on to the end consumer. d. Profiteering should be investigated irrespective of any complaint or not complaint. e. The law encapsulated all the supplies made by the registered person ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B. That the Respondent opted to switch to 5% GST scheme from 12% GST rate on its own, given the market condition in the real estate sector. C. That the Respondent had not passed any benefit to the customers under section 171 CGST Act till date, since the project was not completed and the final computations had not been derived. D. That the Applicant No. 1 withdrew his complaint in relation to profiteering During the course of the hearing on 05.012021, the Applicant No. 1 could not have agitated the matter again. The Applicant No. 1 could not be permitted to blow hot and cold as deemed fit at his end. Further, the contentions put forth by the Applicant No. 1 related to consumer concerns. The redressal forum of consumer concerns was RERA or some other forum. That the Applicant No. 1 did not argue on any point related to profiteering. Therefore, submissions of the Applicant No. 1, during the course of the hearing before this Authority. were non-est in law. E. That the matter was required to be remanded back to the DGAP as the computation arrived by the DGAP was erroneous and based on incorrect assumptions and presumptions, for the following reasons: i. The methodology adopted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o derive whether any profiteering under GST law arose in the case at hand. Until then, the entire exercise of computation would remain a notional exercise. The GST laws did not permit any notional computation to arrive at profiteering Hence. as on date, the Respondent was not in a position to compute any profiteering (if at all) on the issue at hand. 11. Further, the Applicant No. 1 has submitted his additional submissions in which he reiterated his earlier submissions dated 24.12.2020. 12. Copy of the submissions dated 09.02.2021 and 15.02.2021 filed by the Respondent were supplied to the DGAP for supplementary Report under Rule 133 (2A) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The DGAP filed his clarifications dated 25.02.2021 as under:- a That the Respondent challenged computation of profiteering done by the DGAP and alleged that it was erroneous and based on incorrect assumptions and presumptions The DGAP refuted the allegations of the Respondent on the following grounds. i. The Respondent challenged methodology adopted by the DGAP for determining the profiteering amount, which was not tenable. The Respondent suggested that the DGAP should compute the excess tax benefit accrued on the ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the tax rate have actually resulted in a commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both supplied by him." Therefore, the above Section had already given powers to the Authority to expand the scope of the investigation to all the supplies made by a registered person vi. Section 171 empowered the Authority to examine if the benefit of the input tax credits and reduced tax rates had been passed by him or not. Since, the Section doesn't mention about any particular recipient it implied that all the supplies made by a registered person to all his recipients need to be examined from the perspective of passing on the benefits to each buyer. Therefore, all the supplies were required to be investigated because there is a single GST return for all the supplies made by a particular registered person, and there was also a single credit entry in the ITC ledger of the registered person. It was not possible to earmark a portion of the total ITC to a particular product/ SKIS being supplied by a registered person, which could be done only after all the supplies were investigated. 13. Copy of the submissions dated 24.12.2020 filed by the Applicant No 1 was supplied to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the said Apartment as agreed by the Purchaser does not include Sales Tax or Service Tax and the same if determined by the concerned authorities to be payable on this transaction at any later date, the same shall become payable by the Purchaser along witty other Purchasers on demand at any time. Similarly, any additional statutory levies imposed by the Government, which may affect this deal shall also be fully recovered by the Promoter from the Purchaser. Thus. price of the apartment was exclusive of Indirect Taxes. The Indirect taxes or any other Statutory levies are to be fully recovered by the Respondent from the Purchasers/Buyers. The project was still continuing (i.e. the service was still being provided by the Respondent), payment terms were mile-stone in nature and input tax credit benefit (if at all) could only be determined at the end of the project. It is for this reason that the Respondent has been taking a consistent stand that if there was any benefit due to input tax credit then the same could only be computed and passed-on to the Purchasers at the end of the Project (i.e. at the time of culmination of the service). Hence, the present proceedings were pre-mature. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade from the kitty of the Central and the State Governments are passed on to the end consumers who bear the burden of tax. The intent of this provision is the welfare of the consumers who are voiceless, unorganised and vulnerable. This Authority is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the 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. The anti-profiteering related Rules and Section 171 of the Act have express approval of the Parliament, all the State Legislatures, the Central and all the State Governments and the GST Council and therefore, Section 171 and the Rules are constitutional and are not violative of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. This Authority has nowhere interfered with the business decisions of the Respondent and therefore, there is no violation of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The Respondent has also cited the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case of Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Kerala vs. Larsen Toubro Limited 2016 (1) SCC 170, CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty 1981 (2) SCC 460, K. Damodarswamy Naidu &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es uses the word 'determine' and not the word 'prescribe' which means the Authority is endowed with the power to determine the methodology to oversee transfer of benefit of reduction in tax rate and benefit of Input Tax Credit to the Recipients. It is noteworthy that the Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has notified the methodology and procedure for determination as to whether the reduction in the rate of tax on supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit has been passed on by the registered person to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Under the provisions of Section 171 of the Act, ibid, this Authority has only been authorized to ensure that the benefit of tax reduction which is nothing but sacrifice of tax revenue made by the Government is passed on to the consumers who actually bear the impact of the tax and not pocketed by the Respondent. The intent of this provision is the welfare of the consumers who are voiceless, unorganized and vulnerable. This Authority is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the benefit is passed on to consumers in line with the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... builder in the pre-GST period with the ITC available to him in the post GST period w.e f. 01.07.2017. Without comparing the pre and post GST ratios of CENVAT/ITC to turnovers, the exact quantum of profiteering amount cannot be determined. The Authority holds that the DGAP has computed the profiteered amount by taking ITCs to turnovers ratios in the pre-GST & post-GST periods into account which is correct, reasonable and logical and in accordance with the mandate of Section 171 of the Act. The Respondent has also averred that in the pre-GST regime, input services were subject to Service Tax @15%; however, the most input services were taxable @18% in the post-GST regime. Therefore, there was an increase of 3% in ITC available to the Respondent which was not due to any additional benefit due to increase in the rate of tax This credit was available to the Respondent even before GST and hence, the Respondent could not be asked to transfer this additional credit to the customers. In this context, it is to state that the change in rate of tax in Service Tax from 15% to 18% is an additional benefit which has accrued to the Respondent in the post-GST period which is required to be passed o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d clearly not applicable in the present matter, Hence, the contention of the Respondent is not correct and may not be accepted. 21. This Authority finds that the Respondent has further contended that the investigation is void-ab-initio and consequently the present proceedings are incorrect in law. Rule 128 of the CGST rules, 2017 reflects that for initiation of anti-profiteering proceedings. the first step is the examination of application made by an interested party. Hence, the entire proceedings are based on the complaint and evidence supporting the complaint. It is claimed by the Respondent that when the complaint itself stood withdrawn, there is no question of initiation of proceedings against him. It is also claimed by the Respondent that the DGAP has failed to inform interested parties about the withdrawal of complaint in the Notice required to be issued to interested parties before initiation of investigation Thus. the Report issued by the DGAP is not in accordance with the due process of law. In this regard, the Authority finds that there is no provision envisaged under the CGST Act, 2017 or the Rules there under to drop verification/Investigation of profiteering once the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vealed 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 3.56% and during the post-GST period {July-2017 to March-2019), it was 11.74% for the project "Sierra-Vizag". This confirms that, post-GST, the Respondent has been benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 8.18% [11.74% (-) 3.56%] of his turnover for the said project and the same was required to be passed on to the customers/flat buyers/recipients. The DGAP has calculated the amount of ITC benefit to be passed on to all the flat buyers as Rs. 6.46,06,227/- for the project "Sierra-Vizag", the details of which are mentioned in Table-D. 24. In view of the above discussions, the Authority finds that the Respondent has profiteered by an amount of Rs. 6,46,06,227/- for the Project "Sierra-Virag" during the period of investigation i.e. 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019, The above amount that has been profiteered by the Respondent from his home buyers in the above said Project shall be refunded by him, along with interest @18% thereon, from the date when the above amount was profiteered by him did the date of such payment, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f this Order. It may be ensured that the benefit of ITC is passed on to each homebuyer as per Annexure- 'A" attached with this Order along with interest @18% as prescribed, if not paid already. In this regard an advertisement of appropriate size to be visible to the public may also be published in minimum of two local Newspapers/vernacular press in Hindi/English/local language with the details i e Name of builder (Respondent) - M/s. India bulls Real Estate Ltd. (registered as M/s Airmid Real Estate Ltd.), Project-"Sierra-Vizag", Location- Vizag, Andhra Pradesh and amount of profiteering i.e. Rs. 6,46,06,227/- so that the concerned homebuyers can claim the benefit of ITC if not passed on. Homebuyers may also be informed that the detailed NAA Order is available on Authority's website www.naa.gov.in. Contact details of concerned Jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner may also be advertised through the said advertisement. 31. The concerned jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner shall also submit a Report regarding compliance of this Order to this Authority and the DGAP within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this Order. 32. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court....