AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2017 by the Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering in respect of construction service supplied by the Respondent. The above Applicant alleged 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. 801 purchased from the Respondent in his project "Silver Oak", situated at Ghodhbunder Road. Thane West Prestige Residency on introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, The above application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering in its meeting held on 13.09.2019, the minutes of which were received by the DGAP on 09.10.2019, 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 ITC had been passed on by the Respondent to the Applicant No. 1 in respect of construction service supplied by him. 2. The DGAP has stated that on receipt of the reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, a Notice under Rule 129 of the CGST Rules was issued by the DGAP on 23.10,2019, call....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... h) Copy of Balance Sheet for FY 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. i) Copy of Agreement/Registry between the land owners and the developers for the project "Silver Oak''. j) Status of the project "Silver Oak" as on 30.09.2019. k) 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 September, 2019 for all the projects including "Silver Oak". I) Copy of Electronic Credit Ledger for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019. m) Cenvat/Input Tax Credit Register for the F.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and for the period April, 2019 to September, 2019 reconciled with VAT, ST-3 and GSTR-3B return along with details of credit reversaIs. n) Details of applicable tax rates, Pre-GST and Post-GST. o) List of home buyers in the project "Silver Oak" along with details of benefit passed on p) Progress Report submitted to RERA till September, 2019. 5. The DGAP has also stated that the Respondent vide Notice dated 23.10 2019, was informed that if any information/documents were provided on confidential basis, in terms of Rule 13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies or Transactions which shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services) which reads as "Sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule Its 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 has been received after issuance of completion certificate, where required, by the competent authority or after its first occupation, whichever was earlier". Thus, the ITC pertaining to the residential units which were under construction but not said was provisional ITC which may be required to be reversed by the Respondent, if such units remained unsold at the lime 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 were used by the registered person partly for effecting taxable supplies including zero-rated supplies under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,237 76,366 8. Relevant ITC [(H)= (C)*(G)/(F)/(D)*(G)/(F)] 4,63,343 4,11,48,660 Ratio of Input Tax Credit Pre/Post-GST [(I)=(H)/(E)] 1.43% 5.69% 10. The DGAP has claimed from the above Table-'B', 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 1.43% and during the post-GST period (J4, 2017 to September, 2019), it was 5.69% in Project "Silver Oak" which confirmed that post-GST, the Respondent had benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 4.26% [569% (-) 1.43%] of the turnover. 11. The DGAP has further observed that the Central Government, on the recommendation of the GST Council, had levied 18% GST (effective rate was 12% in view of 1/3rd abatement for land value) on construction service, vide Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06/017. The effective GST rate was 12% for fiats. Accordingly, on the basis of the figures contained in Table- 'B' above, the comparative figures of the ratios of ITCs availed/available to the turnovers in the pre-GST and post-GST periods as well as the turnover, the recali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le turnover has accrued to the Respondent and the same was required to be passed on to the Applicant No. 1 and other recipients. The provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondent inasmuch as the additional benefit of ITC @4.26% of the base price received by the Respondent during the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019. which needed to be passed on by the Respondent to the buyers of flats came to Rs. 3,45,28,2791- (Rupees Three Crore Forty Five Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Nine) which included 12% GST, had not been passed on to the Applicant No. 1 and other recipients. On this account, the Respondent has realized an additional amount to the tune of Rs. 2,31,580/-(including GST) (mentioned at serial No. 12 of Annexure-12) from the Applicant No. 1 which included both the profiteered amount @4.26% of the taxable amount (base price) and GST on the said profiteered amount. Further, the investigation revealed that the Respondent has also realized an additional amount of Rs, 3,42,96,699/- as mentioned in Annexure-12 which included both the profiteered amount @4.26% of the taxable amount (base price) and GST on the said profiteere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issions and the same were filed by him on 15.04.2022. 17. The Respondent vide his submissions dated 29,08.2020. 02.10.2020, 12.11.2020, 02.01.2021, 18.02.2021 and 28.03.2022 has inter alia submitted that:- I. Brief background of the Project and the steps taken sun-moto by the Respondent to comply with requirements of Section 171 of GST Act:- The Respondent has mentioned that he was engaged in the business of development of residential projects and has developed the Project Prestige Residency, Ghodbunder Road, Thane (west) in three phases. The building Silver Oak forms a part of the project Prestige Residency among other buildings constructed on the plot of land. Silver Oak and Hill View were the last buildings to be constructed in the complex, completed in 2019 and 2017 respectively. Both these buildings. Hill view and Silver Oak, constructed on the same plot of land, were similar in terms of his product offerings. location, amenities, specifications etc. Further, sales for both the projects were more or less carried out simultaneously for the major period of time. Out of the 100 flats in Silver Oak. 7 fiats were sold under the pre-GST regime i.e. prior to 1 July 2017 and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....* 10,253.00 1,203.54 While determining the projected cost of construction for Silver Oak, the Respondent had anticipated the benefit of ITC that would become available post introduction of GST and appropriately reduced the element of such ITC from the estimated cost. Accordingly, the offer price determined has factored the benefit of ITC available under GST The average saleable price also included the launch discount offered to the first 7 customers, and hence, was quoted lower than the standard price. Pre OC# 10,793.12 663.42 The reduction in price was primarily on account of the passing of ITC benefit to the customers. The benefit passed on was higher than the actual amount of additional ITC benefit derived on a per sq. ft, basis (the actual ITC benefit has been discussed below) It was pertinent to note that each and every customer was informed at the time of booking that the agreement value of the flat was exclusive of GST @ 12% which will be payable over & above. Further, the sales contracts were entered into after due consideration of the impact of GST benefit. Post OC# 12,248.03 11,879.15 368.88 The saleable price for Sil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cess amount paid to him as a mere goodwill measure, be refunded to the Respondent along with 24% interest and resultant cost and damages. The Respondent has suo-moto carried out the necessary compliance required as per the anti-profiteering provision under GST, and has passed on the required amount of benefit arising on additional credits, to all his customers. Sr. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs. Crores) 1 ITC on procurement of goods (FY 2017-18) 1.75 2 ITC on procurement of goods (FY 2018-19) 1.29 3 ITC on procurement of goods (FY 2019-20) 0.39 Total 3.43 ITC benefit per sq. ft. (on total project area) 370 per sq. ft. Percentage to average sale price (%) 3.45% II. The DGAP Report was based on incomplete facts and information:- The Respondent has furnished his submissions i.e. financials. Relevant returns, agreement details. etc. during the months of January 2020 to March 2020 to the DGAP and he was unable to provide complete facts and submissions mainly in relation to the project details and steps undertaken by him in compliance to the anti-profiteering provisions due to sudden outbreak of Cov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vided in the GST law. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that similar petitions were pending with the Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs Union of India and Jubilant Foodworks Ltd. vs Union of India. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court has stayed further proceedings against the suppliers in the above cases. The Respondent has further stated that the fundamental basis of the investigation was currently under scrutiny of the Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly, the Respondent has submitted that the present investigation against him should be either dropped or at least keep in abeyance till the time constitutional validity was upheld by the Hon'ble Court. V. The Incremental credit was considered instead of blocked credit:- The Respondent has submitted that the methodology adopted by DGAP was not correct and has failed to consider the following aspects:- 1) The DGAP has done the analysis on the basis of the incremental credits arising out of the implementation of GST and thereafter applied a percentage on the said credits as an anti-profiteering measure. 2) The DGAP has merely done a comparison between the credits available in pre-GST with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th regimes without analysing the reasons for such increase. An increase in the rate of tax cannot be termed as an anti-profiteering benefit in the hands of the Respondent, and hence, such approach should be relooked upon by the DGAP for computation of benefits to be passed on to the customers. Approach should be - Passing of benefits of blocked credits of Rs. 10, now available The Respondent's working -As stated in the above paras, the Respondent has appropriately factored in the element of ITC in his construction cost and has passed on the benefit of a higher amount (as compared to actual benefit) to his customers. VI. The Computation of benefit should majorly consider only ITC pertaining to goods: - The Respondent has stated that the credit of Service Tax paid on services procured for the construction of the project was already available as CENVAT against the taxable Service Tax liability. Such credit on services continued to be available under GST regime as well. Given the above fact, there has been an increase in the rate of tax on services from 15% to 18% from the pre-GST to the current regime, for which additional working capital has been applied. Tre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r a trading/manufacturing concern since there was a one to one comparison between sales and purchases. However, the said approach could not be adopted for real estate projects, on account of various factors which inter-alia included the pattern for raising of demands to the customers, accrual of credit and also few uncertain factors such as sales undertaken post OC and the resultant ITC reversal thereon, changes in procurement rates, etc. 2) Objective of the GST • The objective of the GST Act was to give the overall benefit to the customers and the benefits, to be passed on, should be for the entire sales consideration irrespective of the amount demanded. The DGAP report restricted the working only to the amount demanded and the % completion or the entire turnover approach was ignored. 3) Cost incurred has no direct link with Turnover:- • Cost incurred on construction has no direct link with the Turnover in case of Real Estate Industry. Typically, there was a wide gap between Turnover (i.e. collection from customers) and construction cost at the beginning of project and over the construction lifetime it narrowed. This resulted in lower IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation to determine his taxability. * The approach adopted by the DGAP, would always give skewed results as it was based on the quantum of credit availed and the consideration received from the customers for that period. The Respondent has captured this analysis by way of a detailed illustration evidencing that the DGAP's computational methodology was inappropriate for the real estate industry. Hence, in the present case, such approach was not reliable to determine the quantum of benefit to be passed on. * It can be observed from the given illustration that there was a variation in the anti-profiteering amounts computed for the 3 identical projects A, B, and C through the DGAP method, though the related factors such as costs, stage of completion, taxes, etc. have been assumed to be same. However, the results through the DGAP approach were distorted. * Basis the above analysis, he has submitted that the approach and methodology adopted by DGAP needs reconsideration as the same was not relevant for the real estate industry which only works on the basis of percentage completion of the property. Even the architect certification, demand from the customers, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be passed on to the customers have been made based on sale value (i.e. demand price) by the DGAP. Thus, usage of two different basis (i.e. allocation of ITC basis area and distribution of alleged GST benefits basis value) in the same computation would give illogical and absurd results. • Section 171 of the GST Act also specified that benefit should be passed by way of commensurate reduction in "prices". Hence. it was evident that GST laws also considered the price as a relevant basis for anti-profiteering provisions. 8) ITC reversal on account of sales effected post receipt of completion certificate (CC) occupation certificate (OC) should be reduced from the total post GST ITC:- • By virtue of sections 17 (2) and 17(3) of the CGST Act, the Respondent was required to carry out a proportionate reversal of ITC attributable to the units sold post the receipt of CC, since such sales were exempted from the payment of GST. • The post GST ITC considered by the DGAP also included such ITC which was required to be reversed by the Respondent (ITC reversal for Silver Oak towards post CC / OC sales was approx. Rs. 0.9 crores). • As p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in prices." In view of the above, the Respondent has submitted that the CGST Act and the CGST Rules empowered this Authority to lay down the methodology for determining the manner in which the benefit of reduced GST rate or enhanced credit be passed on to the recipient. However, no precise computation methodology of principles have been laid down by the Authority. The methodology to be prescribed by this Authority must capture the basic principles that would be relevant to all industries keeping in view the common trade practices which would ensure that Section 171 of the CGST Act was interpreted in a uniform manner across all taxpayers. Such methodology was the crux of Section 171 of the CGST Act because the same would ensure equity, consistency and uniformity in defining the scope of Section 171 of the CGST Act. 2) No machinery provisions available under GST law and hence, charging provisions of anti-profiteering would fail in this case:- The Respondent has stated that this Authority was constituted to curb unfair profit-making activities by the trading community so as to ensure that the traders did not profiteer on account of reduction in GST rate or enhanced GST cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... • State of A.P. vs. Nalla Raja Reddy; • Vishnu Dayal Mahendra Pal vs. State of U.P.; and • D.G. Gose and Co. (Agents) (P) Ltd. vs. State of Kerala * However, the DGAP had initiated the anti-profiteering investigation with a pre-conceived notion that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of the reduced GST rate to his customers. Such arbitrariness would render the entire investigation conducted by the DGAP an otiose exercise resulting in grave injustice to him. In this regard, he referred to the Apex Court's decision in the case of Natural Resources Allocation wherein it was held as under:- "Therefore, a State action has to be tested for constitutional infirmities qua Article 14 of the Constitution. The action has to be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory, transparent, non-capricious, unbiased, without favouritism or nepotism, in pursuit of promotion of healthy competition and equitable treatment. It should conform to the norms which were rational, informed with reasons and guided by public interest etc. All these principles were inherent in the fundamental conception of Article 14. This was the mandate of Article 14 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to submit data When nothing was heard from the Respondent after 4 weeks, second reminder was issued to the Respondent on 16.12,2019 for submission of required information by 27.12.2019. The Respondent submitted desired information on 06.01.2020, 07.02.2020 and 19.03.2020. Vide letter dated 10,06.2020, the Respondent declared all data/information submitted as confidential. Nowhere, it was mentioned by the Respondent that the data/information submitted by him was incomplete, Therefore, above allegation of the Respondent was not correct. b) Computation of benefit on the basis of the DGAP's methodology was not suitable for the real estate industry and has already been stayed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court:- The power to determine Methodology & Procedure has been delegated to the this Authority under Rule 126 of the CGST Rules. 2017 as per the provisions of Section 164 of the CGST Act. The above delegation has been granted to this Authority and functions and powers to be exercised by the Authority have been approved by Legislature. The Authority in exercise of power delegated to it under the Rule 126 has notified the Methodology and Procedure vide Notification dated 28.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing oil cakes and other concentrates; (d) raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed: and (e) raw jute.] 33. Weights and measures except establishment of standards] 34. Price control. The contention of the Petitioner made with respect to cases of Abbott Healthcare Private Limited & Anr Vs Union of India & Ors. (Horeble Delhi High Court) W.P.(C) No. 4213/2019 was not relevant in the present case as the Hon'ble Court observed that there were other petitions pending which have raised a similar challenge of the constitutional validity of the Section 171 of the CGST Act and other provisions apart from challenging the orders of the this Authority. These included WP (C) 378 of 2019 (Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Union of India) and WP (C) 2347 of 2019 (Jubilant Foodworks Ltd. v. Union of India). Therefore all the cases raising similar issues were bundled together and final decision was yet to come. d) Incremental credit considered instead of blocked credit:- The DGAP has observed that prior to 01.07.2017, i.e., before the GST was introduced, the Respondent was eligible to avail credit of Service Tax paid on the input serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... h) No methodology or guidelines prescribed under GST laws to ascertain benefit to be passed: - The methodology and guidelines have been prescribed by this Authority in terms of Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017 in term of the statue. The main contours of the procedure and methodology in this regard (passing on of the two benefits) were enshrined in Section 171 itself. The Section said any reduction" which means the reduction in the rate of tax on any good and/or service and not on any entity/group/company. This meant that every instance of profiteering was to be seen and checked SKU-wise by considering each good/service, at the granularity of SKUs. Further, the Section said "any supply" i.e. each taxable supply made to each recipient thereby clearly indicating that setting off of benefits by any supplier was not allowed. Then the word "commensurate" gave the extent of benefit to be passed on by the way of reduction in price. The Authority therefore has to see that the benefit if at all passed to the recipient by the supplier was actually commensurate to the reduction of rate of tax or the additional ITC available. However, to give further clarification and to elaborate upon t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given in Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Factors affecting pricing in real estate industry: - Not relevant with this case as anti-profiteering law did not interfere in pricing and market practices. j) The DGAP has not commented on the compliance undertaken by the Respondent for Anti-profiteering:- The Respondent had not submitted any proof of suo-moto steps taken to comply with the requirement of Section 171 of the CGST act, 2017 upto the submission of the Report However, if he has passed on benefit of ITC in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, he could place it before this Authority for consideration. The DGAP has data only upto date of submission of his Report and till then the Respondent has not submitted any such data or proof. The DGAP has offered comments only on matter relevant to present case. If comments were not offered on an issue then it did not mean acceptance. Only Silver Oak project has been investigated and reported in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as per all the data and submissions made by the Respondent mentioned in the Report. In his submissions dated 31.08.2020, the Respondent had suggested his own methodology and compared pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....way of commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services of both. 21. It has been observed from the record that the Respondent was engaged in supply of construction service. He has developed the Project Prestige Residency, Ghodbunder Road, Thane (west) in three phases. The building Silver Oak formed a part of the project Prestige Residency among other buildings constructed on the plot of land. Silver Oak and Hill View were the last buildings to be constructed in the complex, which were completed in 2019 and 2017 respectively. Both these buildings, Hill view and Silver Oak, have been constructed on the same plot of land. Out of the 100 flats in Silver Oak, 7 flats were sold under the pre-GST regime i.e,, prior to 1 July 2017 and the remaining 93 flats were sold in the GST regime. 22. The Respondent has contended that the DGAP's Report was based on incomplete facts and information as complete data/information could not be furnished by him to the DGAP on account of Covid-19 restrictions. However, it is evident from the submissions of the Respondent that at no stage he has produced the data before this Authority which he had allegedly not produced before the DGAP w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would pass less benefit or no benefit to another customer than what is actually due to that customer, on another product. Each customer is entitled to receive the benefit of tax reduction or ITC on each product or unit or service purchased by him subject to his eligibility. The term "commensurate" mentioned in the above Sub-Section provides the extent of benefit to be passed on by way of reduction in the price which has to be computed in respect of each product or unit or service based on the price and the rate of tax reduction or the additional ITC which has become available to a registered person. The legislature has deliberately not used the word 'equal' or 'equivalent' in this Section and used the word 'Commensurate' as it had no intention that it should be used to denote proportionality and adequacy. The benefit of additional ITC would depend on the comparison of the ITC/CENVAT credit which was available to a builder in the pre-GST period with the ITC available to him in the post GST period w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Similarly, the benefit of tax reduction would depend upon the pre rate reduction price of the product and quantum of reduction in the rate of tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnments as a special concession out of their tax revenue in the public interest and hence the suppliers are not required to pay even a single penny from their own pocket and therefore, they are bound to pass on the above benefits as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) which are abundantly clear, unambiguous, mandatory and legally enforceable. The above provisions also reflect that the true intent behind the above provisions, made by the Central and the State legislatures in their respective GST Acts, is to pass on the above benefits to the common buyers who bear the burden of tax and who are unorganised, voiceless and vulnerable. It is abundantly clear from the above narration of the facts and the law that no elaborate mathematical calculations are required to be prescribed separately for passing on the benefit of ITC and computation of the profiteered amount. This Authority is under no obligation to provide the same to the Respondent. The Respondent cannot deny the benefit of ITC to his customers on the above ground and enrich himself at the expense of his buyers as Section 171 provides clear cut methodology and procedure to compute the benefit of ITC and the profiteered amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hon'ble Court has observed that there are other petitions pending in the Hon'ble Court which have raised similar challenge of the constitutional validity of the Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and other provisions apart from challenging the orders of this Authority which included WP (C) 378 of 2019 in case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Union of India and WP (C) 2347 of 2019 in case of Jubilant Foodworks Ltd. v. Union of India. Therefore all the cases raising similar issues have been clubbed together and are being heard by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and no final judgment has been passed by the Court till date. Therefore, the above plea is not maintainable. 25. The Respondent has contested the incremental credit considered instead of blocked credit by the DGAP in his Report dated 26,06.2020. In this regard, this Authority agrees with the DGAP that prior to 01.07.2017, i.e., before the GST was introduced, the Respondent was eligible to avail credit of Service Tax paid on the input services (CENVAT credit of Central Excise Duty was not available) in respect of the flats for the project "Silver Oak" sold by him. The Respondent was not eligible to avail ITC of VA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the CGST Act, 2017. Since accrual of ITC may not be dependent on the amount collected from the buyers but availment of ITC is certainly related to the turnover as he utilises ITC in discharging his final output liability and tax on which he recovers from buyers through invoices on monthly basis. 28. The Respondent has contested that the computation of profiteered amount has considered additional tax of 12% on alleged GST benefit. This Authority finds that the above contention raised by the Respondent is not correct as the Respondent has not only collected excess base prices from the customers which they were not required to pay due to the reduction in the rate of tax but he has also compelled them to pay additional GST on these excess base prices which they should not have paid. By doing so the Respondent has defeated the very objective of both the Central as well as the State Governments which aimed to provide the benefit of ITC to the general public. The Respondent was legally not required to collect the excess GST and therefore. he has not only violated the provisions of the CGST Act. 2017 but has also acted in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en passed and also the estimated cost of construction was approved much before the implementation of the GST Act i.e. 01.07.2017. Hence, there arises no question of including the ITC benefit in sale of above 7 flats which were sold in pre-GST period when the Act itself was not into existence. Therefore, there is no question of including the benefit of ITC in sale of flats of above project. Further, there is no ground to compare average sale prices of Silver Oak and Hill View projects as details of computation of the price have neither been given nor required to be taken into consideration by this Authority as it only concerns with the passing of benefit of ITC. 31. The Respondent has argued that various factors like Market dynamics with respect to unsold inventory and changing demand and supply; Payment plan taken from customer e.g. Construction linked payment, 20:80 payment scheme, 10:90 payment scheme etc.; Operational schemes/discounts- Festival offers on Akshay Tritiya, Gudi Parva, free stamp duty/registration etc.; Stage of construction for e.g. booking in pre-launch of project vs booking at considerable completion of project; Prices of competitor in near vicinity, location....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount by taking ITC to turnover (Sales) ratios in the pre-GST & post-GST periods info account which is correct, reasonable and logical and in accordance with the mandate of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. 35. The Respondent has averred that the real estate industry followed Accounting Standard-7 for recognition of revenue and costs for the purpose of accounting in the books. Similarly, provisions for recognition of 'taxable income' have been issued by the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred under section 145 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This Authority finds that the DGAP has computed the profiteered amount by taking ITC to turnover ratios in the pre-GST & post-GST periods into account in accordance with Section 171 of the Act, 2017. Further, there is no principle of accounting which forbids computation of profiteered amount as has been done in his Report. Therefore, the above claim of the Respondent Is not defensible. 36. The Respondent has contested that the area was not a correct basis to allocate credit pertaining to sold and unsold portions and "value" was more logical and correct base. Allocation of credit based on area does not concur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he above claim of the Respondent is not tenable. 40. It is clear from the plain reading of Section 171 (1) mentioned above that it deals with two situations: one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second pertaining to the passing on the benefit of the ITC. On the issue of reduction in the tax rate, it is apparent from the DGAP's Report that there has been no reduction in the rate of tax in the post GST period; hence the only issue to be examined is as to whether there was any net 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 1.43% and during the post-GST period (July, 2017 to September, 2019), it was 5.69% in Project "Silver Oak". This clearly confirms that post-GST, the Respondent has benefited from additional input tax credit to the tune of 4.26% [5.69% (-) 1.43%] of the 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 to be passed on to all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 01.01.2020 vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 and it was not in operation during the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 when the Respondent had committed the above violation and hence, the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively. Accordingly, notice for imposition of penalty is not required to be issued to the Respondent. 46. 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 as per Annexure- A attached with this Order along with interest @18%, 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 Prescon Realtors and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.. Project- 'Silver Oak' Location- Maharashtra and amount of profiteering 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.naagov.i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Reshma Satyajeet 2 403 4,15,957 Shinde N Mr. Hemant Madhavrao 3 501 1,95,619 Patwardhan 4 Mr. Devendra Maharshi 502 4,771 5 Dr. Ramesh Vittal Saliyan 503 4,11,947 Mr. Prasad V. 6 Sahastrabuddhe 601 4,99,472 7 Mr. Abhijeet Mahashabde 602 5,48,200 8 Mr. Saurabh Shantwan 603 1,49,849 6 Mr. Amod Avinash Kulkarni 604 4,15,957 10 Mr. Hitesh M. Jagtap 701 5,54,850 11 11 Mrs. Vaishali Parag Adarkar 702 1,37,572 12 Mr. Sachin Mahipat Jadhav 703 10,735 Page 1 of 6 13 Mr. Santanu Mallik Thakur 704 4,15,957 14 14 Mr. Arnav Kumar Datta 801 2,31,580 15 Mr. Manish S. Shinde 802 4,39,058 16 Mr. Vyas Mohan 803 4,11,947 17 Mrs. Anushree Puthran 804 50,365 N Mr. Kunjur Ramachandra 18 901 5,34,633 Shetty 19 Mr. Nilesh Dashrath Jangam 902 2,32,481 Mrs. Premila Ishwaralal 903 4,23,975 20 Raghuwanshi 21 Mr. Ameya Suresh Mainkar 904 4,15,957 22 Mr. Panchal Ramesh Narayandas 1001 5,24,053 23 Ms. Saumya Varghese 1002 5,10,50....