TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ligible recipients as per the provisions of section 171 (1) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 in respect of three other projects namely ROF Aalayas of 5 Acres, Sector-102, Gurugram, ROF Aalayas Phase-II, Sector-102, Gurugram and "ROF" Amaltas, Sector-92, Gurugram. 2. Accordingly, the DGAP issued Notice to the Respondent on 04.11.2019 under Rule 129 (3) of the above Rules, calling upon him to reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of ITC had not been passed on to the buyers 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 to furnish all the supporting documents. The DGAP has reported that the period covered by the current investigation was from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 and the time limit to complete the investigation was extended up to 30.11.2020 by this Authority, in terms of Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3. The Respondent had submitted his replies vide letters and e-mails dated 14.112019, 08.01.2020, 31.07.2020, and 17.08.2020. The replies of the Respondent have been summed up by the DGAP as follows:- (a) The Respondent has i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sitional measures which were introduced with the purpose that, if there was a reduction in the rate of tax or if there was a benefit of ITC after introduction of GST then the same should have been passed on to consumer/recipient by way of commensurate reduction in price. Thus, profiteering would arise only when the rate of tax was reduced or if there was any benefit of ITC post implementation of GST as compared to pre-UST scenario and where the activity/supply by the service provider was in continuation from the pre-GST period. In the present case, the Respondent had launched both ongoing projects i.e. ROF Aalayas Phase II, Sector-102, Gurugram and ROF Amaltas, Sector-92, Gurugram after introduction of the GST. Thus, in these circumstances there could be no profiteering in respect of other ongoing projects undertaken by the Respondent. 4. The DGAP after examining the above application, various replies of the Respondent and the documents/evidence on record has stated that the main issues for determination were whether there were benefits accruing on account of, reduction in the rate of tax or ITC, on the supply of construction service to the Respondent after implementation of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ysed again for determination of profiteering. 8. The Respondent has further contended that anti-profiteering provisions could not apply to the project "ROF Aalayas Phase-II, Sector-102, Gurugram" and "ROF Amaltas, Sector -92, Gurugram" as these projects were not in existence before the implementation of GST and were launched in the GST regime. The Respondent has also stated that the said projects had been registered and approved by the Haryana real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram (I-IARERA) under Section 5 of the Real Estate Regulation & Development Act, 2016 w.e.f. 27.05.2019 i.e. post implementation of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The booking by the prospective buyers/customers in respect of both projects started in the month of June, 2019 onwards. The Projects were launched by the Respondent on 27.05.2019 i.e. post implementation of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 9. The DGAP has examined the contention of the Respondent by visiting the official website of Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority to verify the correctness of the statement with respect to the RERA Registration claimed by the Respondent and observed that there were only four registrations in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d an opportunity to Sh. Sandeep Kumar of filing submissions before this Authority on or before 18.09.2020. Thereafter, before the Order could be passed. one of the Technical Members of the Authority who had heard the matter was transferred out and thereafter the Chairman of the Authority had also left the Authority. Since, the quorum of the Authority of minimum three Members, as provided under Rule 134 was not available till 23.02.2022, the matter could not be decided. With the joining of two new Technical Members in February 2022, the quorum of the Authority was restored from 73.01.2012. Meanwhile, Sh. Sandeep Kumar, vide his email dated 15.09.2020, submitted that his case fell under the project "ROF Aalayas of 5 Acres, Sector-102, Gurugram and that project had already been investigated and profiteering had been confirmed by this Authority. He stated further that, the Respondent had already issued a Credit Note dated 31.07.2019 and a demand letter, dated 07.09.2019 in his favour in compliance with this Authority's earlier order No. 52/2019 dated 21.10.2019. He has also attached the Demand Letter and Credit Note copy as evidence of having received the benefit. 14. This Autho....