TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les. 2017. The brief facts of the present case, are that a reference was received on 30.08.2018 by the DGAP from the Standing Committee on Antiprofiteering to conduct a detailed investigation under Rule 129 of the Rules 2017, based on two applications dated 17.072018 and 12.05.2018 filed by Applicant No. 1 and Applicant No. 2 respectively in respect of the purchase of fiats in the Respondent's project "Zara Aavaas" (hereinafter referred to as "the Project") located at Gurugram. Haryana. forwarded by the Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering. under Rule 128 of the Rules 2017, wherein it prima facie observed that Section 171 Of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had been contravened. 2. The DGAP had issued a Notice dated 12.09.2018 under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules 2017, calling upon the Respondent to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of input tax credit had not been passed on to the Applicant No. 1 and Applicant No, 2 by way of commensurate reduction in prices and if so, to suo moto determine the quantum thereof and indicate the same in his reply to the Notice as well as furnish all supporting documents. 3. Later on, 14 (fourteen) m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Therefore. the DGAP has claimed that the computation of profiteering was for only those fiats where demands have been raised or payments have been received in the post-GST period. It was further claimed that if the ITC in respect of the unsold flats or the flats in respect of which no consideration has been received in the post-GST period, was taken into account to calculate profiteering in respect of the flats where payments were received in the post-GST period, the ITC as a percentage of turnover would be distorted and erroneous. therefore, the profiteering in respect of the remaining 12 units should be calculated when the consideration was received in the post-GST period. by taking into account the proportionate ITC in respect of these 12 units. It was also noted that since the construction service was being provided by the Respondent under affordable housing, which was exempted from the Service Tax in terms of Notification No. 25/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended vide Notification No. 09/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016, the Respondent was not eligible to avail Cenvat Credit on Service Tax and Central Excise Duty paid on input services, inputs. and capital goods. Moreover. as the Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e within such time, then the time limit for completion or compliance of such action, was extended up to the 30th day of June 2020 including for furnishing of any report under the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act. 2017. Subsequently. given the Notification 55/2020, Central Tax dated 27.06.2020. the time limit stood extended till 31.082020. c) the period covered by the current investigation is from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019. d) in response to his above-said letter dated 18.12.2019. the Respondent has furnished his replies vide letters/e-mails dated 15.01.2020. 04.02.2020, 06.02.2020, 26.02.2020. 0203.2020, and 03.03.2020 wherein he has provided the following documents/information: i. List of home-buyers. ii. Month-wise details of Demand Raised. iii. Reconciliation of demands with GST returns. iv. Copies of GSTR from July 2017 to November 2019. v. Summary of ITC availed which was not available earlier. vi. Details of tax paid on purchases of Cement. Steel. and other items in pre-GST and post-GST period. vii. Details of Contractor and taxes paid to them in pre-GST and post-GST period. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t tax credit was not available. Therefore, the benefit Which he has is the rate of Tax that he used to pay earlier (Pre-GST) and which formed his cost. Therefore he had enclosed the details of all the items of goods and services which he was getting in the pre-GST and Post-GST periods along With the rate of taxes that he was paying in the Pre-GST and Post-GST periods. The summary of the maximum ITC benefit that he was not getting earlier and which he was getting now is reproduced hereunder:- Therefore. even if he was required to pass on the benefit. the maximum amount would have been Rs. 2,19,63.251/- as calculated above. (e) The Respondent furnished a table explaining the ITC benefit which was not available earlier and has now become available in the GST regime. Particular Amount in Rs. Total Amount of ITC Claimed by the company during the period 1^st July to 31^st August 2018 4,77,91,565.00 Total Amount of Excess GST paid to the supplier in Post GST Regime (which is not a benefit to be passed). It is the extra amount that has been paid to the supplies. 2,58,28,314.00 Total Amount if ITC benefit which was not available to the Respondent earli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of demands raised from the home-buyers and the details Of the credit notes issued by the Respondent to his homebuyers as evidence Of the passage of ITC benefit d) That the Respondent has obtained the Occupancy Certificate for the Project on 04.12.2019. 12. The DGAP has also reported that as per the Respondent's submissions that under the same registration there were two projects in the period covered under investigation and in light of Notification No. 03/2019-CentraI Tax (Rate) dated 29.03.2019 he had opted for the 1% GST scheme for affordable housing. The second project "Zara Awas-2" had been registered With RERA on 01.04.2019. So. the second project was outside the purview of Anti-profiteering provisions as it was launched not only after the introduction of GST but also there is no benefit of Input Tax Credit in this project. 13. The DGAP has reported that 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) reads as "Sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule II, sale of budding" Further. clause (b) of Paragraph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter dated 17.05.2019 submitted before this Authority that he was a law-abiding citizen and has passed on the benefit to his home-buyers even in the absence of the DGAP's report and to substantiate his claim. he submitted sample copies of invoices raised to his customers, wherein no GST was Charged in the 7th installment as raised from his home-buyers, The sample invoices were found to be in order; however the DGAP could not incorporate them as the period covered under the impugned Report of DGAP covered the period only up to August 2018. 15. The DGAP has further reported that in the pre-GST era, since the service of construction of affordable housing, provided by the Respondent, was exempt from Service Tax, as per Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, as amended by Notification No. 9/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016, he was not eligible to avail credit of Central Excise Duty paid on inputs/capital goods or Service Tax paid on input services. Further. since the Respondent was paying VAT under Haryana VAT Composition Scheme @ 1%, he was not eligible to avail credit of VAT paid on inputs, whereas in the post-GST period, he was eligible to avail input tax credit of GST paid on i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal input tax credit of 6.55% of the turnover should have resulted in a commensurate reduction in the base price as well as cum-tax-prices. Therefore. in terms of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the benefit of the aforesaid additional input tax credit that has accrued to the Respondent, is required to be passed on to the recipients. 19. The DGAP has further submitted that the Respondent during the course of hearing before this Authority, vide submission dated 25.07.2019 had stated that he had passed on the benefit of input tax credit to the home-buyers by way of issuing Credit Notes and not charging GST from his customers in their last demand raised in October 2019. He submitted details of Credit Notes to the tune of Rs. 1,95,09,694/-, issued to 797 home-buyers. However, on perusal of the data, the DGAP has noticed that out of these 797 home-buyers. 9 buyers have cancelled their booking, and hence they had been excluded. also, no details of benefit passed on to 16 Other home-buyers could be found. Accordingly, the total quantum of benefit passed on to the home-buyers was found to be Rs.1,88,56,367/- to 772 home-buyers. The benefit so passed on in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een included in the profiteering calculation. Those units where the booking was done in the pre-GST period or demands were raised in the post-GST period but they have been consequently cancelled and have been excluded from the calculation of profiteering. The Respondent had provided a list of such units and demands raised from them. Therefore, the above computation of profiteering was with respect to those fiats only where demands had been raised or payments had been received in the post-GST period, and which were not cancelled as of 31.03.2019. If the input tax credit in respect of the unsold flats from whom no consideration has been received is taken into account to calculate profiteering in respect of the flats where payments have been received post GST, the input tax credit as a percentage of turnover would be distorted and erroneous. 23. In view of the above discussion, the DGAP has concluded the benefit of additional input tax credit to the tune of 6.55% of the turnover, accrued to the Respondent post-GST, and the same was required to be passed on to the Applicants and Other recipients during the period 1.07.2017 to 31.03.2019. Such ITC amounted to Rs.4,74,88,840/-. On ver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in his case. On the contrary, the prices of inputs and services have increased while the prices Of works contact remained unchanged since the Pre-GST period. In respect of the benefit of ITC though the (d) the only benefit that accrued to him was on account of Excise Duty/ Works Contract Tax/ Service Tax for which he was not eligible for the credit but which has now been made available to him Post-GST. (e) based on his estimation. he had passed on the benefit to his homebuyer customers and he agrees to pass the balance credit, if any, based on actual working in line with Section 171 of the CGST Act. (f) the DGAP computation was much more than the actual benefit that had accrued to him since it has been worked out on basis of the proportionate demands raised by him, That the methodology adopted by DGAP is arbitrary as it completely ignores the actual working of goods and services utilized by him in the Pre-GST and Post-GST periods. (g) the DGAP in his Report dated 28^th August 2020 has improperly and baselessly computed the profiteered amount. completely ignoring his submissions without considering the details of actual rates of tax of various ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r actuals, it works out to only 2.85%. (j) the DGAP has ignored the fact that the tax on inputs used for construction and services of the contractor under works contract also increased when GST was introduced as is evident from the table below:- Input Excise Duty VAT(CST)/Service Tax/WCT GST % increase Steel 12.50% 5%(VAT)2%(CST) 18% 3% Cement 12.50% 5%(VAT)2%(CST) 28% 60% Construction Services - 5.25%(WCT) 18% 242% Other Items - 5% Approx. 18/28% 400% (k) the DGAP ought to have considered the following data while making the computation:- (I) therefore, accordingly the maximum amount that he could have been required to pass on as ITC benefit works out to be Rs. 2,19.63,251/-, as calculated above. based on the understanding that the increase in the rate of taxes paid by him to his suppliers should be deducted while calculating the amount of profiteering. (m) that at the time of making his submissions before the DGAP, he was under the impression that in the pre-GST regime. he was covered under the composition scheme under VAT, and that there was no service tax on Affordable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....follows:- (i). With respect to the submission of Applicant No. 2, the DGAP has clarified that the benefit of ITC on construction service is not available to the Respondent after the date of OC. However, he may avail ITC on Goods and Services required for his maintenance service. The computation of profiteering is limited to the issuance of the Completion/ Occupation Certificate and therefore the contention of the Applicant appears to be incorrect. (ii). The DGP has further stated that the Respondent opted for the scheme, which was available to him as per the provisions of GST law and there is no provision in Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 to issue such directions to any registered person. Hence, it appears that the contention of the Applicant no. 2 is not as per Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. (iii). With respect to the submission dated 08.10.2020 of Applicant No, 1, the DGAP has clarified that in the pre-GST period 1% VAT was payable while in the post-GST period, GST was payable on inputs that were allowed as a credit to Respondent In his report dated 28.08.2020, the DGAP reported that the profiteering done on higher Input Tax Credit availed should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the Home-buyers. (d). on the Respondent's contentions that ITC of VAT in the pre-GST period should be allowed, the DGAP has submitted that the Notice of initiation of Investigation under Rule 129 of CGST Rules, 2017 was issued on 12.09.2018 and in response. the Respondent informed that there was no VAT input credit availed by him and the raw material was purchased against 'Form-C'. However, he did not submit any VAT details or returns in this regard. After the issuance of the Investigation report dated 27.02.2019 the Respondent vide letter dated 17.05.2019 submitted that as per the Government of Haryana VAT policy, no VAT was charged from homebuyers. The Respondent had categorically submitted that he had opted for the Composition Scheme of 1% VAT in Haryana VAT for his project and these facts were also reported in the Report dated 28.08.2020 under Rule 133(4) of CGST Rules, 2017. Now the Respondent is stating that as per the VAT Assessment Order he should be allowed to avail the benefit of VAT which is against the statutory requirement under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act. 2003 as amended. Hence, the contention of the Respondent may not be accepted. 29. O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of law and its interpretation must necessarily be adjudicated upon by judicial members. Further, the Madras High Court has recently. in its Order dated 20.09.2019 in the case of Revenue Bar Association V. union of India, W.P. Nos. 21147,21148 and 14919 of 2018. has struck down Sections 109 (3) and 109 (9) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 which prescribed that the GST Appellate Tribunal shall consist of one judicial member and two Technical Members. Given the above, it is humbly submitted that the composition of this Authority is bad in law and unsustainable. (b). he has also claimed that Section 171 of the CGST Act is ultra vires of Article 246A of the Constitution of India. Article 246A according to which the GST is being levied under the CGST Act only provides for legislation concerning goods and services tax on supply of goods or services or both therefore. insofar as the provisions of Section 171 seek to fix prices at Which the goods and services ought to have been supplied is beyond the scope and ambit of Article 246A, apart from unreasonably interfering with the right to trade. Therefore, Section 171 is beyond the scope and ambit of Article 246A and Article ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med by this Authority or DGAP. Section 171 (3) of the CGST Act stipulates that the NAA shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be prescribed in the CGST Rules. Given this, the CGST Rules themselves should have indicated the methodology and manner for the determination of profiteering. In the absence of any such authority under the CGST Act, Rule of the CGST Rules cannot sub-delegate the power to determine the methodology and procedure for the determination of profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act Insofar as Rule 126 of the CGST Rules empowers the NAA to sub-delegate to itself the powers to determine the methodology and procedure for determination of profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act, the same is beyond the scope of Section 171 read with Section 164 of the CGST Act Therefore, Rule 126 of the CGST Rules is unconstitutional for being in excess of its parent statutory provisions because it is a well-settled position of law that delegated legislation cannot go beyond the statutory provisions and Reliance has been Placed in this regard on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. the State of MP, 1970 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'profiteering' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, which was relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education v. the State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 697,774 as "taking advantage of unusual or exceptional circumstances to make excessive profits". He has contended that the DGAP has acted in a narrow and arbitrary manner by ignoring the relevant considerations hence the DGAP's report is liable to be set aside. (f). he has also contended that the DGAP has erred in including the amount of excess GST collected on the alleged profiteering amount collected from the customers in the total amount of alleged profiteering liability and without prejudice to the submission that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act have not been contravened. it is submitted that any amount of GST collected by him has been duly paid to the Government per the relevant statutory provisions of the CGST Act. Once the amount of tax so collected is deposited with the Government and he has not retained any such amount, he has submitted that no recovery of such an amount can be made against him, In this regard. he has claimed that the Central Go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired to examine whether ITC availed by the registered person or reduction in the rate of tax has actually resulted in a commensurate reduction in the price, however, the above Act was silent on the modus operandi to be adopted for the computation of the benefit, the methodology to be adopted and timing of passing on the said benefit The legislature intended to provide rules concerning the computation of benefit accruing on account of transitioning into the GST regime however. there was no mechanism in place to compute the commensurate reduction in prices as there was no methodology for determining the meaning of the term "commensurate reduction in prices", Further. the CGST Act did not provide any time frame within which such commensurate reduction in prices was to be passed on and Rule 122 to 137 of the above Rues also did not provide any methodology for determining the meaning of the term "commensurate reduction" in prices and because of the absence of any prescribed methodology it was important to adopt a logical method and in case actual figures were available, then actual working has to be checked which could satisfy the intention of the legislature and rationally pass on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cement. In addition, VAT is also payable on construction material from @12.5% to 14.5% in most States. In addition, construction material also presently suffers Entry Tax levied by the States. Input Tax Credit of the above taxes is not currently allowed for payment of Service Tax. The credit of these taxes is also not available for payment of VAT on construction of flats etc. under the composition scheme. Thus. there is cascading of input taxes on constructed flats, etc, (b). as a result; the incidence of Central Excise duty, VAT, Entry/ Tax, etc. on construction material is also currently borne by the builders, which they pass on to the customers as part of the price charged from them. This is not Visible to the customer as it forms a part of the cost of the flat. (c). this will change under GST. Under GST, full input credit would be available for offsetting the headline rate of 12%. As a result, the input taxes embedded in the fiat will not (& should not) form @ part of the cost of the fiat. (d). the builders were expected to pass on the benefits of lower tax burden under the GST regime to the buyers of property by way of reduced prices/ installments......
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Any increase in the rate of tax could not be considered for the computation of profiteering. The supplies in respect of which the credit was available even under the erstwhile regime, any incremental increase in the credit due to an increase in the rate of tax could not be considered as part of the benefit. He submitted that the ratio of CENVAT ITC to turnover considered by the DGAP had completely ignored the above fact and hence it should not be accepted. The methodology adopted by the DGAP to determine the profiteered amount for the period up to 31.03.2019 without taking into account the increase in the rate of tax was incorrect and if the above increase in the rate of tax was considered the ratio of benefit would be reduced to 2.85 % as opposed to 6.55%. (j). he has further submitted that as per Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act 2017: 'Any reduction in rate of tax on supply of goods or services or the benefit of Input Tax Credit Shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction price.' In the instant case, the effective rate ot tax on supply of construction services to the customers had increased under the GST regime. Further, regarding the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ady been completed and all the details are available with DGAP. 32. The above said submissions dated 06.02.2021 of the Respondent were forwarded to the DGAP for clarifications on the following issues; (i). the total ITC available to the Respondent from July 2017 to Jan. 2019 has been shown as Rs.4,77,91,565/- in para 13 (viii) of the DGAP report dated 28.08.2020; whereas in Table A of his report, the same amount has been Shown as total ITC for the period July 2017 to March 2019. Whether the Respondent had availed ITC for the month of Feb. 2019 and March 2019 ? (ii). whether the Respondent has reversed the credit in respect of 27 units that were booked after he has opted for the 1% GST scheme w.e.f. 01,04.2019 is mentioned in para 27 of the report dated 28.08.2020 ? 33. Accordingly the DGAP vide his supplementary Report dated 16.02.2021 and 18.04 2021 has submitted replying on the above issues as below:- (a). On the issue mentioned in para 32 (i) supra. the DGAP has stated that the total ITC available to the Respondent from July 2017 to January 2019 is Rs. 4,77,91.565/-, as mentioned in Table of para 13 (viii) of the DGAP's report dated 28.08.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....powers and functions of the Authority to the Central Government as per Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 2(87) of the Act. on the recommendation of the GST Council, which is a Constitutional Federal body created under the 101^st Amendment of the Constitution Which has formulated and notified Rules 127 and 133 which prescribe the functions and powers of the Authority. Both the above Rules have been framed under Section 164 of the CGST Act, 2017 which also has the sanction of the Parliament and the State Legislatures. It shows that the delegated power to prescribe powers and functions given under Section 171 (3) has been duly exercised by the Central Government by formulating the above Rules, on the recommendation of the GST Council. Therefore, this Authority may exercise such powers as have been prescribed under the CGST Rules, 2017. Since the functions and powers to be exercised by this Authority have been approved by competent legislatures, the same is legal and binding on the Petitioner. He has further stated that Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution guarantees all the citizens the right to freedom of trade and commerce and Section 171 of the Act or the Rules ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction as well as the existing base price (price without GST) of the product The computation of commensurate reduction in prices is purely a mathematical exercise that is based upon the above parameters, hence it would vary from product to product, hence no fixed mathematical methodology can be prescribed to determine the amount of benefit that a supplier is required to pass on to a recipient the profiteered amount. However, to give further clarifications and to elaborate upon this legislative intent behind the law. this Authority has been empowered to determine/expand the Procedure and Methodology in detail. He has further stated that one formula which fits all cannot be set While determining such a "Methodology and Procedure" as the facts of each case are different. 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 completion of the project, the timing of the purchase 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 the other project a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontentions of the Respondent made in the said para are incorrect. He has also stated that the provisions of Section 171 are abundantly clear, complete, and concise in this regard and hence there is no ambiguity in their interpretation and there is no requirement for one-to-one identification of procurement of Goods and Services. Further, on the contention of the Respondent that "Profiteering' has not been defined in the CGST Act or the Rules therefore. he has Cited the definitions of "Profiteering from the Black's Law Dictionary in his support. the DGAP has submitted that the word "profiteered" has been duly defined in the Explanation attached to Section 171 of the above Act as under:- "Explanation: For the purposes of this section, the expression "profiteered" shall mean the amount determined on account of not passing the benefit of reduction in rate of tax on supply of goods or services or both or the benefit of ITC to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both. The DGAP has further stated that based on the above Explanation there is no doubt about the definition of profiteering which has been duly incorporated in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carries the essence of the law. as has been given in Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 & Rules made there under. (k). On the contention of the Respondent made at para 31 (i) supra, the DGAP has submitted that the methodology adopted by DGAP is correct and strictly as per the law enshrined in Section 171 of the CGST Act The methodology has been consistently adopted by DGAP and upheld by this Authority in all similar cases. The DGAP has further stated that to quantify the benefit of the input tax credit, it is necessary to quantify the credits available to the Respondent in the pre-GST regime and also the credits available in the GST regime. In the erstwhile pre-GST regime, various taxes and cesses were being levied by the Central Government and the State Governments, which got subsumed in the GST. Out of these taxes. the input tax credit (ITC) of some taxes was not being allowed in the erstwhile tax regime, For example. the input tax credit of Central Sales Tax, which was being collected and appropriated by the States, was not admissible. Similarly. in the case of construction service, while the input tax credit of Service Tax was available, the input tax credit of Central ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttee on Anti-profiteering in its meeting held on 20.06.2018 and were referred to the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering. These complaints were examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering in its meeting held on 07.08.2018 & 08.08.2018 and forwarded to the DGAP recommending a detailed investigation, who vide his investigation Report dated 27.02.2019 furnished to this Authority had stated that the Respondent had obtained the additional benefit of ITC to the extent of 7.13% of the taxable turnover, which he had not passed on to his buyers and he had thus profiteered an amount of RE (inclusive of GST) in violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. However, due to the objections raised by the Respondent on the above-said Report of the DGAP as well as the discrepancies found in the Report. the DGAP was directed to reinvestigate the above complaint under Rule 133 (4) Of the above Rules vide Order No, 17/2019 dated 02.12.2019. 36. In the light of the abovesaid Order, the DGAP has re-investigated the matter and submitted his Report dated 28.08.2020. wherein it was reported that the ITC as a percentage of the total turnover which was available to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1, 2 & 3, Rs, 36,120/- from Applicant no. 4, Rs. 27,510/- each from Applicant no. 5. 7, 8. 9. 10, 11, 12,15. Rs. 36,120/-from Applicant no. 6, Rs. 48,029/from Applicant no. 13, Rs. 70,068/- from Applicant no. 14, and Rs. 71,868/from Applicant no, 16 and an amount of Rs.2,80,46,938/- from 772 other recipients who are not Applicants in the present proceedings. This has been detailed in Table B and paragraph 23 above, 39. Therefore, the DGAP has computed the ratio of CENVAT as a percentage of the turnover for the pre-GST period and compared it with the ratio of ITC to the turnover for the post-GST period, and then computed the percentage of the benefit of additional ITC which the Respondent is required to pass on to the flat buyers. The above ratios have been computed by the DGAP based on the data/details provided by the Respondent and have been duly verified from his Service Tax and GST Returns filed by the Respondent for the period April 2016 to June 2017 and July 2017 to March 2019 respectively and hence, the ratios calculated by the DGAP are based on the factual record submitted by the Respondent and hence they can be relied upon while computing the profiteered amount The above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are being given by the above Governments out of their tax revenue. Further, the computation of the profiteered amount is an easy mathematical exercise that can be done by any person who has knowledge of accounts. However, to further explain the legislative intent behind the above provision. 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 in consonance with the provisions made under Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act 2017, which is very clear in its intent, therefore, the contention of the Respondent is distractive and baseless. 42. The Respondent quoting the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Sampath Kumar V. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124. and Madras Bar Association v. union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1 and the Hon'ble Madras High Court's Order dated 20.09.2019 in the case of Revenue Bar Association V. Union of India in W.P Nos. 21147.21148 and 14919 of 2018, has contended that the composition of this Authority is unsustainable and unconstitutional, as there is no statutory provision for challenging the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 It is therefore clear that this Authority has not violated Article 246A and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution hence the contention of the Respondent is incorrect and not acceptable. 44. The Respondent has contended that Section 164 of the CGST Act 2017 does not empower the Central Government to further delegate the powers to any other person/authority and also Section 171 of the CGST Act does not authorize any rules to be framed by this Authority or DGAP. In this regard, the Parliament as well as all the State Legislature have left the task of framing the Rules under the CGST Act, 2017 to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 164 of the CGST Act. Accordingly, the Central Gove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of tax structures due to implementation of GST. As such, the said calculation of the Respondent is rejected. Further as per the Table-C, the Respondent has passed on the ITC benefit of Rs.1,88,56,367/- only to home buyers for the period from 25.01.2018 to March 2019, The DGAP has correctly computed the additional benefit of ITC which was required to be passed on by the Respondent to his home buyers but he has failed to pass on the total additional benefit to the eligible home buyers. Therefore the claim of the Respondent that he has not contravened the provisions of section 171 of the CGST Act 2017 is not sustainable. 46. The Respondent has contended that before 01.01,2020 there were no substantive provisions authorizing the levy of penalty for violation of Section 171 of the CGST Act. In this regard. vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) which have come into force w.e.f 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act 2017. This Authority finds that, as no penalty provisions were in existence between the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 When the Respondent had viol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been verified by the DGAP that the Respondent has already passed on benefit amounting to Rs.1,88,56,367/- to 772 homebuyers. Hence. the Authority finds that. the profiteered amount required to be returned/passed on by the Respondent is Rs, 2,86,32,474 (inclusive of GST @ 12%/ 8% on the base price) as is evident from the above Report dated 28 08.2020. Hence, the Authority holds that the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGAT Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondent. The Respondent has realized an additional amount of Rs.34,418/- each from Applicant no, 1, 2 & 3. Rs.36,120/- from the Applicant no. 4. Rs.27,510/- each from Applicant no. 5, 7, 8, 9. 10, 11. 12,15. Rs.36.120/from the Applicant no. 6, Rs.48,029/- from the Applicant no. 13, Rs.70.068/from the Applicant no. 14. and Rs.71,868/-from the Applicant no. 16 and an additional amount of Rs.2,80,46,934/- from 772 flat buyers other than the above Applicants. The details of the amount of benefit of ITC passed on. the benefit to be passed on and the details of the buyers have been mentioned by the DGAP in Table-B and Annexure-13 of his Report dated 28 08.2020. These buyers are identifiable as per the documents placed o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... website naa.gov.in. Contact details of concerned Jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner may also be advertised through the said advertisement. A report in compliance of this Order shall be submitted to this Authority and the DGAP by the Commissioners CGST/SGST within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this Order. 52. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in MA. no. 21/2022 in MA no. 665/2021 in Suo Moto writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 vide its Order dated 10.01.2022 directed that:- "(i), The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. (ii). Consequently. the balance period or limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021. if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. (iii), In case where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITC Benefit to Tumover 2.57% H-G/D Document 3 • CENVAT of Sence Tax Paid on out Barvices the Afforable Housing Input Ta Chant of VAT Find on Schemes TO CERVATIVAT Tax De 10 Table A 277.76.760 2.00 14.254 4.77.01.054 77.31.054 Total Taxe Tamoverfor 42.06.28:438 03/31407 1.89.77.104 43.802578335052887 Residential Liniji Som (F) Tala Aves (G) 4.40.137 40,137 Ratio of put Tax Creda (CENVATAT) to turnover Pre-ST THEPA Rate of put Tax Credit () Document 4 5 No Penad Particulars Table B Pre-GST Post-GST Total July July 2017 25.01.2018 10 April 2016 to 2017 to March 24.01.2018 March 2019 June 2017 2019 VAT Service TavGST ram 12 Rato of CENVAT VAT input Tax Credit to C 16:55 6.55 5.65 Turnover asper Table-bove ( Increase in ratio of imput tax credit availed post CUST(IN) D 6:55 6.55 6.55 Analysis of increase in inout tax credit: 5 Basa Price colected (Gross Turnover) {*} E Fx E-12% of a GST Conected on Base Pre 230,360,188 432.413.856 682,783,044 27644.303 34,593,108 62.237.411 7 Recalibrated Ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: 200 34306 11 3067-200 1130C 10001 37 41 316367300 12141 9041 B 104.967 B 31-200 00: 14 546.567-300 M 15044 12 306562-201 31.306 10 Mashe Ruman 1704 12 SOLNG2200 31316 AS 45 306967.000 11316 30 14 50000 31,200 12945 L A SOU MAY FRO 71306 . 3D 19. 3300967.000 31306 30 5814 4 20 B SONG 200 35308 北 $ STENET ALL 31.304 41 31.201 Maisal Elmain SADA 136 31306 40 13 4067-300 33306 1044 BY 506567-800 11.300 41 31208 47 Aur Marsh B 13 106 MIT ADD 2044 54 45 62 Sheet Argen DRAM 18 SACHTANE 14314 W $ 11278 12385 LRY AL305 14 . 33.309 12345 10 38 33965 86 Fumar 13 SOLNEY ON SWEET 41 March Vinthian 38 33.20 H. Aal Artes MOON 4 44 A 1 14001 60 WANY 11.358 1309 X1.218 12 ADR M 11 SPET DOR 41.34 4 11,306 15 1124 34 D 11.30 12143 5 " 11.20 20 9 11.306 £2749 RE LE ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... MI6 167 300 38.308 41 104 500 11.304 3146 3300 20 64.346 37305 Sanwa Schae 10 44545 33065 118 Pain Seg • ATL.ORY:.500 EZINS 301 STE1000 101 MOLA 24 46340 EMD 1444 $ 473 was bec 44.340 11 SOALMAS HE 58.308 43140 500 145 0021 506963.500 3L2016 11. SLAM 300 12345 Jenay 4 5000 35.394 10141 012301.500 235 41141 11 31.AD4 CLINE L 35464 201 VIDAL 17 858.385 500 $5.344 310 9021 16.394 714 1 51.304 natih . 31.964 310 WLAN 218 910 AURIMAM SLBB4 4 RA 5041 9 14804 14 35.494 224 8041 T BET,351.300 em Of 227 14 63-222 238 Futter ple 1011 426 CN9 Gip 311 247 211 BAR 47322 4 41333 7 5571 3 222 191 1390 SANG 1231 212 . 48310 12345 309 3481 1,06 95 0 em 198 REMB Saves 2018 7 LININ 200 345 67-27 العمار 0377.00 61233 1234 341 3041 E 18218 ME 12341 0123 12242 m ×....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....538 3 34,318 350 ScaIe 361 2100 3 14.318 2043 AV 2001 3 AD-320.00 34.838 109 35T 18 SHAIE 2 at 300.000 14.838 SARIE 413-320 SLESE 30430 W 4 343 M4A 4 SAXSE 2041 2 14.850 3 14.814 30430 343 AN 471 19 14354 164816 MAIE AV 14856 30421 14191 PR WAP 200 FOLL 375 2331 817.230 500 SARIE 30430 129 Sathina Obeker 37046 17 SARIB 1715 SAXD 10431 177 SABIE 30436 у 411 434 415 410 411 410 418 426 179 179 143 142 141 IMC AN 843-330-5088 SAAYE 54:338 21430 $32.370 000 SC828 10430 837.230.000 14838 20420 13 SA458 17133 27 21.220.00 54AM 30435 37-200 000 WHE 54.318 30430 34418 SERIE 04 847,130 000 54.838 204305 301 Vertical Sprite 17318 22 $4.338 18 54.336 20 2009 2 837-370-006 14.334 815236300 S4238 $37225.000 19 SARM 29430 406 L 22306 Pt 3120 3 75343 408 eiver umar Otel 3 1.312, M-000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03 $7350 26033 636 Murgen 3074 . SLER 300 37330 21433 927 WPLAN:100 12.318 528 872632.000 37350 21430 AN B 87613-306 37318 210 341 Svite House B X70,630 (00 21430 646 B 478 50.500 17318 4 476630.304 17530 25830 344 Mahir Muhrge T 3412 585 678.530-200 37300 25430 330 2126 BTSLAND 206 17356 587 SPERS 27 7.500.000 57.500 3417 E STLANG000 $7358 Olking Shipp 340 548 546 141 47 2363 HIGH AN $7000 STAUR 214 2044 2 $2.35 2 52.350 21430 16120 ARTOON 19 37.360 21491 3 21430 1004 a 17.350 3015 3 206 2135 2 430 20 57.350 21430 113 vivek Stanna 1 1443 314 4 $7850.309 21420 955 3 57.350 31490 306 1001 2 21430 533 18 $78.830.000 57.5M0 21333 558 17 Stan 31430 4 BPA.430 200 57330 23433 11 67558 OS SYLANG DOD 土 57363 127,150 21430 37360 214MĚ EEVA 21400 1754 19 19 2 546 Aant Ma 17 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....42:317 134 523 3 932312 189 27 62317 S 16297 18 MEX009:200 9.12 21947 42313 146 My Puma Mulee 30101 43317 1 42117 17994 " 3129 3 41317 148 1114 17 12.317 3 00000 3400 941309.00 12.313 MB31 2133 4 S S-317 77118 Chanta 841.300 000 42313 3480) 763 3452 3 67.317 77530 Me harne 3 643 100-206 34807 240 Ms Marmia 3 SUJET thut 3330 11317 3043 000 68310 218 3043 31.317 SABLY 27540 X1095) LT 41.008000 KÆXYF JA 71311 2 82327 312 THE 3 MILOOS DOO 67.317 1077 S 12.117 200 SLOST SAKEY 330 100 42337 34817 My Fad 3064 3 82319 722 1341 18 82343 4007 720 38015 18 65857 MACY 726 200 1000 LIP SUEP 315 GUNT 210 143.000 300 66317 963.305400 ALBER 3023 241.000.000 68317 201 134 135 776 750 247 B 741 3 344 17 NO MVine Puth Sud 17 150 Jak's Sanak Kansa 954 INE 754 754 43347 34837 2 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 000. 40 B17 300 #A327 2327 Man 1627 81839 MLI M KOTEN 16 ALDAY 47347 MOST 174409 SP. 306 447 Amar Hayak LX000 AM 41317 61317 41.319 41,317 17 61317 301 817 994 11.317 17 A1317 4 BLALE 12 GLYLY SLY 12345 19 945-000 41117 34822 100 3 Osha 1 இ 4000 101 17 3 963.009.JAM ALBST 34831 27548 18 943.009 200 800 42317 34837 Marma 3245 3 DES.700.000 41312 301 27548 618 Alle Supte 65317 STEAT ANLIA SEX308.000 999 12317 2760 1 G6X.509.000 62212 312 1400 Qw 913 34901 397) B 911 4807 37063 ST 63311 24622 430 M Betar 3 814,420.00 61317 535 34305 37513 SELAN.200 812 16317 M 0.005 000 A1.317 819 27543 17 60317 517 2064 2 1.3KY ATM 200 2 LED SM000 82,836 515 Aver Sgt Blandar 1052 1 901 3213 E 1,387 878300 82.806 611 34807 Santeng Sang 2679 3 82336 SHARY B LINE #75,000 87366 915 4 ME....